Atheist Group Attacks Schools in Tennessee, Mississippi Over Prayer at Athletic Events

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), which has gained its reputation (and a tidy living for its employees) by suing school districts and municipalities over public prayer, has chosen schools in Mississippi and Tennessee as its latest targets. According to the Mississippi Press website, the Wisconsin-based atheist group has threatened all 151 Mississippi school superintendents with lawsuits if they allow prayer over public address systems during school football games. Last September the FFRF targeted Mississippi’s Jackson County school district over its inclusion of prayer at athletic and other school events, prompting the district to redouble its efforts to protect the free-speech guarantees of its students.

The Mississippi Press reported that in its letter to the superintendents, the FFRF “cited a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case involving Santa Fe schools in which judges ruled that a policy permitting student-led and student-initiated prayer at public high school football games and other public school-sponsored events violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.” The report noted that in an effort to address the continued FFRF assault on students in the state, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed the “Schoolchildren’s Religious Liberties Act,” which stipulates that each school district must treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint in the same manner that it treats his or her expression of a secular opinion. In addition, students must have the freedom to organize prayer groups, Bible studies, faith-based clubs, and other religious gatherings, and each school must establish policies for public forums that allow student speakers to express religious viewpoints at school events.

J.D Simpson, executive director of First Priority, a Christian ministry that reaches out to students in public and private schools, said that the issue boils down to First Amendment freedoms. “You can take away the microphone,” he said, “but you can’t take away our mouth. We still have the freedom of speech.”

According to one local television station reporting on the issue, a number of Mississippi school districts have substituted a moment of silence for official school-sponsored prayer at football games in the coming weeks. But some local pastors have taken the initiative to organize grassroots prayers at games. One of those pastors, Jim Burnett of Willow Pointe Church in Oak Grove, Mississippi, has organized with several other local pastors to have their congregations show up at games and recite the Lord’s Prayer aloud. “It’s very unsettling for society to make such threats and push God out of what He created,” Burnett said. “We are running a spiritual fever. We are sick. We are just morally getting farther and farther away from were we started.”

Meanwhile, in Tennessee the FFRF has targeted the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga (UTC), demanding that it put a halt to prayers before its home football games. According to the Associated Press, the atheist group sent a letter May 15 to the university’s chancellor, Roger Brown, warning the university that it must halt what FFRF spokesperson Annie Laurie Gaylor described as “unlawful university sponsorship of Christian prayer.”

The Chattanooga Times-Free Press reported that following receipt of the letter, UTC officials decided to allow the prayers to continue, prompting a follow-up letter from Gaylor. “Gaylor’s letter said a UTC football game attendee reported that the Fellowship of Christian Athletes delivered invocations at football games from the 2010 season until now,” reported the Chattanooga paper. The FFRF’s chief atheist informed the school: “It is our information and understanding that these prayers conclude with a reference to praying in the name of Jesus Christ.”

After dutifully citing the supposed legal precedents for demanding that the school cease its reverence for God, Gaylor pulled out her own copy of Scripture, challenging the UTC officials that “those who are not impressed by constitutional dictates might perhaps open their Bibles and peruse the Sermon on the Mount.” She then quoted Christ’s words from Matthew 6:5-6, to try to build a case that praying in public equals the sin of hypocrisy.

The FFRF also recruited some home-grown UTC atheists in an attempt to browbeat the university officials into obeying the group’s demands. “This is definitely an issue where religious minorities feel excluded because of the explicitly and only Christian nature of these prayers,” insisted UTC student Bryan Barkley of the university’s Secular Student Alliance, reading from the FFRF’s own talking points for the case. “We encourage anyone to call and just let [the UTC officials] know how they feel.”

A spokesman for UTC’s Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) insisted that it has provided the prayers for the school’s football games at the invitation of the school. “We’ve never pushed that or to do that,” said Jay Fowler, FCA’s director at the university. “We’re very thankful that we’ve had that opportunity. If the university continues to ask us to do [the prayers], we will be happy to.”

According to the Chattanooga Times-Free Press, UTC officials are deciding how to respond to the FFRF’s threats.

Courtesy of  http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/12539-atheist-group-attacks-schools-in-tennessee-mississippi-over-prayer-at-athletic-events

Atheist given Asbo (Anti-social behavior order) by U.K. Court for leaflets mocking Jesus

Harry Taylor, 59, left home made posters at Liverpool John Lennon Airport three times in November and December 2008.

The self-styled philosopher denied three counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress but was convicted in less than an hour by a unanimous jury.

Among the posters, one image showed a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of ”no nails” glue.

In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: ”Not for women or gays, obviously.”

Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise were told in another: ”Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.”

Taylor, of Griffin Street, Higher Broughton, Salford, told Liverpool Crown Court during his trial he was sexually abused by Catholic priests as a youngster.

But he said he bore no grudge against people of faith and claimed he was merely trying to convert believers to atheism.

Unemployed Taylor, on medication for depression, said it was ”preposterous” to suggest people could be incited to violence by cartoons – another of his depicted the Pope with a condom on his finger.

He had adapted newspaper and magazine cartoons and added captions of his own – one made a crude joke on a picture of a woman kneeling in front of a priest.

But some of his cartoons went way beyond exercising freedom of expression, prosecutor Neville Biddle said.

One image showed a pig excreting sausages with insults to Islam, and others linked Muslims to attacks on airports.

It is thought Taylor, who was convicted of criminal damage, battery and threatening behaviour in February this year, might have dumped the images when he was at the airport collecting and saying goodbye to his Polish wife.

He told the jury he left the posters in tribute to John Lennon, whose acclaimed Imagine referenced ”a world with no religion”.

Today, it emerged Taylor, was convicted of similar offences in 2006.

The previous December he was arrested handing out offensive leaflets in Waterstone’s book store in Deansgate, Manchester.

Police discovered he had also visited a nearby Tesco and unplugged the Christmas music because he found it offensive.

Taylor had also visited two city centre churches, St Ann’s Church and St Mary’s, known as the Hidden Gem.

Inside he left leaflets including a picture of a monk making a finger gesture with the caption ”Father F****r”.

Judge James told him: ”Not only have you shown no remorse for what you did but even now you continue to maintain that you have done nothing wrong and say that whenever you feel like it you intend to do the same thing again in the future.”

Taylor’s Anti-Social Behaviour Order bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place.

He was sentenced to six months in jail suspended for two years, ordered to perform 100 hours’ of unpaid work and pay £250 costs.

Courtesy of  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7624578/Atheist-given-Asbo-for-leaflets-mocking-Jesus.html

New Campaign: ‘Pray for an Atheist’ in April

A group of Christians, including a former atheist and a philosopher, have launched a new campaign that calls fellow believers to “pray for an atheist” beginning with April Fools’ Day.

“We want you to select an atheist friend or relative and pray for them by name each day during the month of April, 2010 (and beyond!). It’s easy and could make an eternal difference for someone you love,” the campaign states on its Facebook page.

Currently, “Pray for an Atheist” is purely a Facebook initiative and is designed to not only encourage Christians to pray for nonbelievers but also to become better equipped to share their faith in a respectful manner with atheists.

A number of atheists have expressed their strong objections to the idea of Christians praying for them, according to James S. Spiegel, author of The Making of an Atheist.

“I personally find it offensive if anybody wants to pray for me,” Spiegel cited one as saying.

Other more profane and vulgar comments have been deleted.

Spiegel believes “all of this vitriol” confirms the thesis of his book, which explores the moral-psychological roots of atheism.

“Atheism is not at all a consequence of intellectual doubts,” stated Spiegel, professor of philosophy and religion at Taylor University in Upland, Ind. “These are mere symptoms of the root cause – moral rebellion. For the atheist, the missing ingredient is not evidence but obedience.”

The Taylor professor contends in his book that the atheist’s argument of unbelief because of the existence of evil or lack of scientific evidence is only a smoke screen to mask the real issue, which is personal rebellion.

“The rejection of God is a matter of will, not of intellect,” he argues in his recently released book.

“In short, it is sin that is the mother or unbelief.”

Responding to objections from atheists to the prayer campaign, Spiegel said, “Atheists simply have no reason to object to our praying for them, especially since, given our worldview, it is an act of love.”

“After all, if God does exist, then it would be an enormous benefit to atheists if they come to believe this,” he added. “Therefore, I would ask atheists to respect my right to do what I want in the privacy of my own home, as I kneel in prayer on their behalf.”

The prayer campaign was started by Spiegel and Holly Ordway, author of Not God’s Type and a former atheist. It comes as atheists are scheduled to converge in New York this weekend for the 36th National Convention of American Atheists.

The national organization claims there are 30 million atheists in the U.S. According to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, meanwhile, the number of outright atheists was estimated at 1.6 million but the population is growing.

Courtesy of Christian Post at http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100331/new-campaign-pray-for-an-atheist-in-april/index.html

Faith, Charity, and the Atheist

By Miguel Guanipa

Thanks to the congenital human faculty of empathy, there is no shortage of charitable agencies ready to assist people in dire straits. One venue which I find particularly interesting is a collection of — for lack of a better definition — “like-minded” organizations, banded together under the moniker Non-Believers Giving Aid, in a joint effort to address the enormous amount of suffering caused by the sudden outbreak of tragic events currently taking place around the globe.

This curious gathering — or as they fancy themselves, “free thought groups”– is the brainchild of famous atheist Richard Dawkins, founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), who pioneered this alliance, along with other non-religious affiliations, with the purpose of funding relief efforts to help victims of natural catastrophes — or as insurance agencies like to call them, Acts of God.

Given the preponderance of secular associations Dawkins has enlisted in this venerable campaign against suffering, it would seem that he is none too eager to accept any membership requests from groups that openly profess allegiance to any religion. Indeed, Dawkins makes a point of reassuring prospective donors that their contributions “will only be passed on to aid organizations that do not have religious affiliations.” One could surmise that this progressive coalition is not averse to openly engaging in a very direct form of religious discrimination. But Mr. Dawkins has reasons for this caveat, which are outlined in the group’s mission statement.  

Although at first glance it looks like a noble effort on their part, the initiative is billed as an attempt to counter the more sanctimonious and judgmental approach of religion-based charities, whose emissaries, according to Richard Dawkins, are often more inclined to “gloat over natural disasters” — an unfortunate reference to televangelist Pat Robertson’s impetuous claim that the earthquake in Haiti was a form of  divine chastening against a nation that had entered into a pact with the Devil.

Yet despite Mr. Dawkins’ selective outrage at religious-based charities, nobody is really arguing that religious and secular institutions should compete for the benign privilege of lending assistance to the needy, as the immediate concerns of people in distress often trump fact-checking the doctrinal beliefs of their benefactors. Unfortunately, what is purported to be Dawkins’ main objective of alleviating people’s suffering ends up being sidetracked by this backhanded rebuke against his more pious competitors in the field.

Now, since Dawkins has chosen to make God-centered charities the object of his vilification, an equally impartial examination of what he offers as the alternative is in order. And frankly, if the substance of his charitable endeavor were of no importance, then why would he and his posse of God-less relief agencies go to such lengths to assure potential patrons that theirs is just as generous and substantive — if not more worthy — a mission as that of their rivals?

In terms of substance, Dawkin’s amoral altruism is rooted in an eminently self-serving ethos. It showcases a magnanimity grounded on feelings rather than a transcendent absolute. The shallow brand of compassion that it produces seeks to satiate a sense of self-fulfillment through service to others. That is, since it assumes that there is no moral law-giver to whom we are accountable and from whom we derive moral concepts like good and evil, which ultimately steer us toward self-renunciation for the sake of the less fortunate, we are left with helping others simply because it makes us feel good about ourselves. This kind of charity is defined as that which springs from a desire to meet a vague sense of obligations to help others, and it is fueled by the expectation of reciprocity and a self-congratulatory reminder that we are, after all, rather decent human beings.

Real charity instead is anchored on the injunction furnished by the millennia-tested Judeo-Christian tradition, which affirms that every benevolent act towards a fellow human being in need is a direct offering towards our creator — a reminder that charity begins with a surrender of the self and a concern for the other. Moreover, this tradition does not cast all suffering as intrinsically evil, but it recognizes that in many instances, evil does result in much of the suffering we experience in the world. But also, in a deeper sense, suffering can ultimately have a redemptive purpose. 

In contrast, Atheists tends to view suffering as an evil to be avoided, for some even at the cost of removing those whose suffering is deemed less consequential and yet are the most vulnerable, such as the terminally ill and the unborn. Ironically, this is a supreme evil perpetrated in the name of what is really a hollow form of compassion.

So what’s really at play here is a brazen attempt on Mr. Dawkins’ part to impute legitimacy to a time-worn assertion that Atheists have been peddling for decades, which is that morality can exist without God. In other words, since the moral concepts of good and evil are social constructs that tend to organically emerge within any given cultural setting, we can arbitrarily fashion a moral paradigm where actions can be judged as good or evil, and we can bypass any invocations of a higher being we have to eventually answer to. We thereby answer only to ourselves. 

Following in the tradition of their neo-Darwinist cohorts, to whom they are greatly indebted, Atheists maintain that the survival of the species somehow hinges upon a yet-undiscovered benevolent gene that mysteriously compels the fittest — against their native instincts of self-preservation, no less — to help the weaker victims of undirected natural forces, or the very forces which Dawkins describes as being “supremely indifferent to human affairs and sadly indifferent to human suffering.” Incidentally, these are the same forces that arbitrarily chose to bring both victim and rescuer into being. This rather uninspired tautology also allows for random mutations that intermittently favor or hinder our own preservation, giving, on occasion, only the illusion that a personal deity is supervising these complex natural phenomena.

But who can discern the moral divide between helping our fellow man and abandoning him to perish in his suffering in the context of an amoral world like the one envisioned by Atheists? How does the Atheist draw the sublime authority in the first place to judge whether or not suffering is an undesirable state of affairs — an evil, if you will? In a universe that is merely the product of random, unplanned, undirected, and hence purposeless forces of nature, how does he arrive at a fixed criterion for appraising the goodness or depravity of an act, since there is no absolute, transcendent moral standard he can appeal to?

In short, from where does the unbeliever summon the prerogative to decree a moral benchmark by which he can judge the evil or good qualities of chance-driven phenomena — of which he is also a product — that haphazardly transpire in a wholly impersonal universe, including the natural occurrences that bring so much suffering to humans?

In Dawkins’ world, these are questions that should remain outside of the purview of the religiously inclined; but the answers to them could very well spell the moral insolvency of his coterie of faithless philanthropists.

Courtesy of American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/faith_charity_and_the_atheist.html