Tuesday, August 21, 2012





School district dismisses atheist group's threat to sue over 'God' songs

A national atheist group is demanding that a New York public school district remove songs from the curriculum of a music class because they feature the words "god" and "lord" in the lyrics, but the educators aren't backing down.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation has sent letters to the Shenendehowa Central Schools, in Clifton Park, N.Y., threatening legal action if the songs aren't removed from Okte Elementary School's curriculum. The possibly-religious songs include "Thank You for the World So Sweet," which says "Thank you God for everything," "Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep," which says "I pray the Lord my soul to keep," "Michael Row your Boat Ashore" and "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands."

"This is not minor. It's predatory to conduct this toward a young, captive audience who would be truant if they didn't attend public school," Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, told FoxNews.com.

The organization sent a letter to Superintendent Oliver Robinson about the songs in June on behalf of a parent who complained. While the two groups communicated over the summer break, a third letter from the FRFF staff attorney arrived on Aug. 6, which warned of legal action.

School officials are standing firm, claiming the songs the kids are being taught are simply educational:
"None of the songs was taught, or used, as prayer. Thus, the case you cite dealing with school prayer is an inapposite...[the songs] were used appropriately to teach musical concepts," Kathryn McCary, the school district's attorney, said in letter mailed to the foundation.

Source


25 comments:

Anonymous said...

It doesn't matter what temperature the room is, it's always room temperature.

Anonymous said...

Attention FFRF, the constitution clearly states that, "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion."

I repeat, CONGRESS shall make no law. The school is NOT congress and they are not making any laws.

The founders were themselves a very religions group. A lot were ordained ministers, yes a few were not, but they were mostly believers in god. Look at their writings, loot at the buildings, religious iconography everywhere.

Plus, the constitution says congress can’t establish a religion, it didn’t say it couldn’t favor one!

Another point, why is it when one Christian complains they are told to shut up, but if ONE atheist complains the entire school and community has to shut up?

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:43 proves what we all know, that leftist atheists, (a.k.a. Satan's children) are not capable of arguing their points without the use of personal and hate-filled attacks. This is what makes them so irrelevant.

Anonymous said...

One atheist organization doesn't represent all atheists everywhere (as bird-brain seems to believe with such generalizing relish).
It depends if the school was or was not trying to promote religion through music or if only some of the songs just happened to have culturally religious links.

Anonymous said...

3:08, what are you , a child?

Anonymous said...

it's called freedom of expression, singing about God doesn't exempt a person from freedom of expression.

Anonymous said...

2:43, actually statistics will show that the left complains much more about things than any Christian group does. Most lawsuits are instigated by lefties complaining about something. Pwnage, you lose.

Dean said...

I have nothing against atheists trying to convert me to their religious views. After all, I try to convert them to mine.

What is irritating is their demand that everyone adhere to their religious philosophy.

If an atheist doesn't wish to pray, or sing something that has the word "God" in it, that's fine. No problem. But they have no right to demand that nobody prays or sings said song.

Are we not supposed to perform and/or listen to Handel's Messiah? Mozart's masses? Perhaps we are to purge all music that has religious connection.

It sounds like some (not all) atheists would like that.

It is still my opinion that some (again, not all) atheists find themselves wracked with guilt when seeing or hearing something that reminds them of God. And that drives them to demand complete removal of religion from society.

Anon 3:08 sounds like one of them.

Anonymous said...

I am an atheist and I think that religion is silly, but a large amount of very fine music has been written for religious purposes. We should all be free to enjoy that music.

Go Away Bird said...

There is NO SEPARATION of CHURCH & STATE in the U.S. CONSTITUTION at all

Dean said...

Anon 6:30 AM

In my experience you are in the majority, and I appreciate that. It's the same in almost any group - a minority of extreme believers in the cause give the majority a black eye.

I apologize for painting all atheists with the same brush. That wasn't my intent, but that's certainly how my post reads.

My apologies.

Anonymous said...

"3:08, what are you , a child?"

Nope. Right wing blogs are great for trolling. It's a lot more entertaining than watching sitcoms.

Use the Name, Luke said...

Right wing blogs are great for trolling. It's a lot more entertaining than watching sitcoms.

In short, yes he is.

Anonymous said...

I don't have any problem with the songs - in fact I have sung most of them - but I do think there are other songs the school district could use to teach music.
If the children want to sing these songs, fine, but it is inappropriate for the school district to mandate these songs must be sung as they have clear religious conotations and children should not be coerced by a school to perform them. If the parents want these children to sing these songs they can teach them themselves or send them to church.

Anonymous said...

Well how much were these "religious" songs mixed with other kinds of songs? That would be relevant.

Anonymous said...

4:01 , how so? freedom of expression doesn't stop at religious expression.

Anonymous said...

5;32 The point was that US public or secular schools are not supposed to promote any religion specifically or surreptitiously. Thus if the songs were deliberately chosen as a means of "back door" indoctrination would be different from having a variety of songs only some of which happened to have religious themes from a purely cultural perspective.

Anonymous said...

7:12, what is 'backdoor' about it? how many can you cite have 'converted' because of the music. Get over it, it's hate against Christians.

Anonymous said...

If Christians want prayer, go to church. Keep it away from me.

Anonymous said...

If a non-Christian doesn't want to hear Christian prayer, put on your iPod and ignore it.

Anonymous said...

If you truly don't like how the United States Constitution is written (which, by the way, was specifically signed "in the year of our LORD"--a direct reference to Jesus Christ) then follow its provisions and petition your legislators to propose a Constitutional amendment to make the changes you want. In the meantime, stop bitching and just deal with the fact that the United States has a framework of government which, while certainly not perfect, is the best we have.

Anonymous said...

So I guess the so-called defenders of the US Constitution here would be just fine with the children in that US school being taught to recite islamic chants, as it's also in the same way "free speech".

Anonymous said...

As a defender of the Constitution, generally speaking I say "No" because Islamic chants are not a prominent part of the history and traditions of the United States of America. However if a class was offered that fairly compares religions, and Christian prayer were included along with Islamic chants, then I say, "Yes" because it provides equal opportunity and representation within the context of comparative religion. But most Liberals would deny the real history of united States in order to placate the minority representation of a minority group.

Anonymous said...

I say no because the Christian songs generally taught to children tend to be uplifting, happy, and joyous. Islamic chants, on the other hand, encourage rebellion.

Anonymous said...

As usual "free speech" becomes so qualified to the point of just allowing what somebody personally agrees with, or what the powers-that-be agree with at the time.