"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

ACLU: Baptism? No. Abortion? Yes.

Churches bad. Abortion clinics good. You got that?

No seriously. Check this lunacy out. I mean this is like conversation between Gary Busey and Jeff Conway kind of crazy. The ACLU obviously believes that churches are so dangerous to minors that they're freaking out because some football coach took some players to his church. But if a student wants to go to an abortion clinic, the ACLU is all for it and will fight like a caged wombat so that young people don't need permission slips from their parents to skip school to kill their unborn children.

Compare and contrast these two stories. NKY.com reports:

The head football coach at Breckinridge County High School took about 20 players on a school bus late last month to his church, where nearly half of them were baptized, school officials say.

The mother of one player said her 16-year-old son was baptized without her knowledge and consent, and she is upset that a public school bus was used to take players to a church service — and that the school district’s superintendent was there and did not object...

Superintendent Janet Meeks, who is a member of the church and witnessed the baptisms, said she thinks the trip was proper because attendance was not required, and another coach paid for the gas.

Meeks said parents weren’t given permission slips to sign but knew the event would include a church service, if not specifically a baptism. She said eight or nine players came forward and were baptized. “None of the players were rewarded for going and none were punished for not going,” Meeks said.

David Friedman, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said in an interview that the trip would appear to violate Supreme Court edicts on the separation of church and state — even if it was voluntary and the school district didn’t pay for the fuel.

“If players want to attend the coach’s church and get baptized, that’s great,” Friedman said. But a coach cannot solicit player attendance at school, he said, noting, “Coaches have great power and persuasion by virtue of their position, and they have to stay neutral.”
So the ACLU has a problem with minors being taken to church services if the school is in any way associated with it?

I'm going to pretend to be flabbergasted here in order to heighten the drama like Matlock used to do when he had the goods on some suspect who was sitting there all smug and stuff while testifying to his innocence.

And I'd act all coy until I dropped the bomb like, "But isn't this the same ACLU that in March of this year advocated the school keeping parents in the dark if students so that children could leave the school in order to acquire an abortion!"

Whoa! Gasps from the jury. An admiring glance from the wise judge. Maybe a sly wink from the court stenographer. And me just all sitting there like butter wouldn't melt in my mouth.

But it's all true. The ACLU fought for schools allowing children to leave school to get an abortion without a permission slip but now they're saying that a football coach can't take kids to a church? I rest my case. I'd slap down the corroborating evidence like this from Fox News which reported in March:
The ACLU is threatening to sue a California school district after it changed a policy to require teenagers get parental consent to leave campus for confidential medical services.

The Vista Unified School District board voted unanimously Thursday to change its existing policy that allowed students to be excused for confidential appointments — including abortions — without notifying parents, according to the North County Times.

The ACLU of San Diego County and the National Center for Youth Law claim the new policy violates state law, KPBS reported.
So, according to the ACLU, schools are required to allow children to abortion clinics and leave parents in the dark but if the students go to church then the parents need to be informed. I can't wait until the day that everyone realizes that the ACLU is an organization of lunatics bent on the destruction of America as we know it.

Your Ad Here

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmm, I thought that was a discription of our current standing congress "I can't wait until the day that everyone realizes that the WhiteHouse/ACLU/congress is an organization of lunatics bent on the destruction of America as we know it."

Rob in Maine said...

To quote Grandpa Simpson, "Matlock ! We want Maaaaaaaatlock!

Sarah said...

Doesn't surprise me- most elite liberal abortion supporters are brainwashed into thinking it is a moral act and sacrosanct. Therefore, in some sick way, abortion becomes a sacrament to them (ie: the ultimate in MY WILL BE DONE). That's probably why they're so upset about the baptisms, thinking "How DARE an ACTUAL religion based on God's will be allowed to exist!!" True faith tends to make them look like the selfish, morally stunted people they are.

It's rediculous, really! And one of the things the Enemy can't stand is being laughed at:).

PersonalFailure said...

So I guess you would be okay with an atheist teacher taking children on a trip to get debaptized, commit blasphemy and play Pin the Tail on the Savior- as long as he paid for the gas?

DG said...

If I were a Catholic parent and this fundamentalist/born-again coach took my kid to be re-'baptized' (as many of these born-agains believe Catholics need to be), you better believe I'd be mad as hell.

That said, I can understand what you're saying, in a sense. But still . . .

I wonder how many of these kids were already validly baptized in the church?

Robert said...

I have to agree with DG. Allowing students to have abortion without parents knowing what's going on is outrageous and shouldn't be allowed. But, I wouldn't want someone who holds religious views different than mine taking my son to his church and being baptized.

Sarah said...

Just a quick note of clarification- the students and parents were informed ahead of time that they would be attending a religious service. If parents of any religious color or stripe had issues, they could have refused to allow their child to go then and there. The trip was not mandatory, so no coercion.

I have a feeling that the athiest mother in this case had not done her "homework" regarding where her child was going and is regretting the result.

As for Personal Failure's retort about the atheist coach's excursion, I have two comments. First, if I had done my homework (which each parent should do- 5 minute phone calls to parties in charge clear up things quickly), and I found out the nature of the trip (religious indoctrination of the atheist kind), I would have politely declined to allow my child to attend. Secondly, Baptism (if done in the Trinitarian formula) cannot be undone- it leaves an indelible mark upon a person's soul- whether they later refute the Lord or not. Therefore, you cannot be "unbaptized" if you were properly Baptized in the first place. Of course, if my child participated in such event, I would have to worry about them burning in Hell for being an apostate heretic, but that's another worry altogether- at which point, suing the atheist coach becomes a minor concern.

Craig said...

Right. If the coach was a muslim and took your kids to a mosque and inducted them into the Islamic faith WITHOUT your consent, you would be OK with that.

Also, if California state law does not require parental consent the school district cannot require it, it really is that simple.

matthew archbold said...

Craig,
it is thinking like yours that is destroying America's children and the public school system.

Christina said...

I understand that you're pointing out the hypocrisy of the ACLU and objecting to it.

However, what this coach did was wrong. Since baptism is an act of initiation and comes with an obligation, to baptize a child without the parent's permission puts that child at risk of not being raised in the faith. It's not something that should be done. Even from a non-religious standpoint a parent has a right to know where their child is and what they are being taught - permission slips should have been required, no matter what funds were used.

eulogos said...

One, I don't think this trip was appropriate at all. Coaches are way too influencial in young men's lives to be pushing their own version of religion on their team.
A school bus is purchased with public funds and repaired with public funds. Going on one indicates that this is in some way a school activity. Did this trip leave from the school grounds? Students on school trips are insured by the school district. Were these students insured by the school district during this trip? I am sure the bus was, but would the school have been liable for medical care if there had been an accident? What about if they were hurt on the school grounds before or after the trip if it was not during school hours? Furthermore, HOW were the parents aware, if there were not permission slips? How can the school prove they were aware? In any school my kids ever attended, parents had to sign a permission slip any time a child left the school during the school day, or for any trip which left the school grounds at any time. This school is nuts not to do this merely from the point of view of being able to defend itself legally.
Second...the coach and the superintendant of schools were there at this Baptist service to which they brought the football team. Doesn't this sound like too much interaction between the school and the Baptist church to you? Would you as a Catholic want you child to be under emotional pressure to go to a Baptist church and listen to teaching which is heretical from a Catholic point of view and which might lead your child to a sacriligious attempt to repeat a sacrament? I would have been furious. As for the "mother should have made a phone call" thing, she shouldn't have to make a phone call to find out where the school, or the coach, is taking her teenager. I can just imagine the kid telling Mom at breakfast, as she is rushing to get ready for work, or to hurry off to her nursing school clinical. At least if he sticks a permission slip in front of her she can see "Baptist Church" and say "No way."
But I dont' think this should have been done, even with permission slips.
Susan Peterson

eulogos said...

As for the abortion thing, I don't think kids should leave school for ANY reason except being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, without the prior permission of the parents. (And for that they sign forms at the beginning of each school year.)

When I thought one of my daughters was going to be taken to Planned Parenthood in a nearby city by a boyfriend, I called the school and asked the principle to make sure she got on the schoolbus, which he did, personally accompanying her from her last class. (My granddaughter started college this fall.)

So it is nice when the school actually helps. But at the least,
one shouldn't send one's kid to school and have them leave to go anywhere without your knowing about it. Much less to have a dangerous medical procedure of which you might not approve.

Susan Peterson

matthew archbold said...

the story is about the hypocrisy of the aclu. I say schools should actually focus on teaching our children basic subjects so that our children actually don't rank so low in math and reading.

eulogos said...

The ACLU thinks abortion is a human right. That's wrong.

However they are right in the first case.

The way you headlined the article made it seem as if you thought the first occasion was something good and positive.
Susan Peterson

Craig said...

Mr. Archbold,

My kids are doing just fine, thank you very much.
I am just pointing out your hypocrisy in the first example. You would never, under any circumstances, allow your child to be indoctrinated into any religion without your consent. Getting baptised is not the same as going to a church service.
The second example is a simple matter of following the law for the state of California. The Vista Unified School District cannot override the state.
There is no librul conspiracy involved in either of these cases.

matthew archbold said...

Craig,
Whether I would allow my child to go to a religious service is not the concern here.
My point is that the ACLU wants to cut off parents from making decisions.
And whether or not its California law concerns me not at all. If it is a law it is a law because of organizations like the ACLU.

Craig said...

Mr. Archbold,

The article you cite from NKY.com about the baptism specifically says "Neither the ACLU nor Liberty Counsel is involved in the Breckinridge County case."
An ACLU counsel was obviously just asked about the case for the article.

Regarding the Cali case from the ACLU San Diego website:

"Students of the Vista Unified School District who may be struggling with a drug or alcohol addiction, contemplating suicide, victimized by rape or incest, or are having unprotected intercourse have now been put at risk.
This illegal and inflexible policy naively assumes that all families are healthy and all parents are helpful. But in the real world some teens have legitimate fear of abuse or expulsion from the home, which often leads them to ignore serious mental or physical health issues."

And here's a quote from the letter they sent to Vista:

"To require parental consent for confidential medical care would create public health concerns and violate California law...The Board’s legitimate concern for encouraging parental involvement in children’s health care may be achieved, as other school districts have done, by implementing policies that are legal and promote young people’s well-being..."

"If a school is concerned that the previously introduced policy would hurt students or be abused by some, the school could take appropriate steps to verify appointments. Trained personnel, such as school nurses, may also encourage students to consider whether voluntary disclosure to parents is appropriate. We support policies that promote teenagers’ voluntary discussions of sensitive matters with their parents."

scripturelink said...

Just because abortion involves surgery does not make it healthcare. You will not convince Matthew Archbold, or us who read this brilliant blog. I do think the coach was wrong, but that was hardly the point. The point was against the ACLU, which this blog often writes about.

As it is, I often find the American arguments are just that, at each others throats over different issues, while the rest of us look on- knowing that whichever ideology wins gets to hurt the rest of us.

The coach was wrong, and I have been exposed to similar, yet worse things from New Wavers.

Fact is, any objection to this, shows why others object to abortion. A minor is a minor, and a minor is not the wisest creature in the world.

As it is, your economy is facing doom from population decline in the local population, and in general, American law, is not something I admire!

Brilliant article Patrick.

p.s. it does not matter if they are involved or not- it matters what their view is, because it shows up bias.

Read this blog a bit more, you will note- simply because an argument is used, does not mean they endorse the source, most of this is satire or social commentary. That does not mean it is celebrating what is clearly the associating of a team with a new wave religion, wanting to add to its numbers and possibly its Sunday collections.

scripturelink said...

p.s. I said it show why people oppose abortion, and it does, if you were to note the stats the rest of us have, you will see the psychological and psysiological and social effects on a person who kills the human being in their stomach.

I also love arguing from Article 2 section d of a little UN document on the Crime and punishment of ohh, something called genocide.

But this blog is interesting, read it, you may stop attacking the views of one of its authors!

Post a Comment