Strollerderby : christianity

Playmobil Sues Priest For Playing With Toys

JeanneSager — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:32:00 GMT

The idea of buying kids toys is to play with them, right? Even if you're an adult who happens to like playing with kids toys in order to amuse little kids?

Not according to Playmobil.

The toymakers known for their bizarre sense of what kids like to play with (the airport security checkpoint still blows my mind) are now suing a German priest who was using Playmobil's little people to recreate scenes from the Bible for little kids.

Father Markus Bomhard, from the Protestant Community of Eschborn, created the "Playmo-Bibel" (spelling is correct - this is Germany, after all) says on his site that he got the idea from his own daughters - who wanted to know why there was no "Playmo" minister toy. They used their own Playmobil toys to recreate everyday life, he said, so why not the Bible?

Broken down into the Old Testament and the New, his site is mostly pictures taken of his little scenes, from Adam and Eve to the last supper, plus scenes from church life, including a wedding.

But according to the Daily Telegraph, lawyers for Playmobil have told Bomhard he didn't get their permission for the project, so he must stop photographing the toys and using the name Playmobil. OK, the latter part I get - it's trademarked after all.

Here's the crazy part: the Telegraph reports, "the German firm is understood to be horrified that the scenes could offend people of other religion." This from the company that sells a Playmobil nativity set and an advent calendar set?

Their biggest gripe is apparently that Bomhard dared dress the characters up. As a Playmobil rep told the Telegraph, "We've got no problem with using the figures as they are in their original costumes. What we are on about is redesigning them and changing their appearance."

Isn't that what you make toys for? For people to play with, reimagine, redecorate and redesign? Because if we're not supposed to redesign toys, I imagine Fisher-Price will be coming for my daughter any day now . . . something about cutting all the hair off of Big Sister Dora.

Image: Telegraph - from Father Bomhard's Playmo-Bibel

Four Creepiest Animals Turned Adorable Kids Characters

Children's Laughter Bugs Pre-School's Neighbors

Kids Sing Religious Song, Parents Sue

JeanneSager — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:35:00 GMT

There are songs that mention religion, and there are songs that are religious. When a song is named "In God We Still Trust," and features the words "Bible," frequent references to "Him," and the word "believe," wouldn't you think that falls into the latter category?

Apparently, it doesn't matter. At least not to a Florida public school where a third grade teacher was training her students to sing the song by country group Diamond Rio for their end-of-year program. The kids had the song memorized when one made mention of it to Mom and Dad. When the parents complained, the teacher told the kids they wouldn't have to sing it if it violated their beliefs, but told them they would be excluded from participation in the program. Sounds like punishing kids for their beliefs to me.

The superintendent yanked the song just before the parents filed a lawsuit, which they filed anyway, looking for compensatory damages because (according to the suit), teaching the song "amounts to religious indoctrination and interferes with the parents’ right to raise their children according to their own beliefs."

I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but what's upsetting here is the defense from the school. They're acknowleding they're aware of separation of church and state, but they say a religious song is different. The lawyer for the St. Johns County School Board said choruses are traditionally exempt from the rules against public prayer in school. According to a report in a Jacksonville newspaper, the attorney said, "Courts have held that a choral curriculum can be expected to include religious songs because a significant percentage of choral music is based on religious themes or texts."

In general, I agree. I sang Hanukkah songs when I was a kid in school, and I'm Catholic. It never bothered me because they were historical (and honestly, I thought the festival of lights was pretty cool!) and not heavy on religious rhetoric. There was no "we will believe in X, Y and Z."

But this isn't an old song with a passing reference to religion. It's a song released on an album in 2006 by a contemporary band. And it talks heavily about believing and following God (click here to watch the music video and see for yourself). And if the teacher told kids who didn't believe that they couldn't participate in the school program, that's religious persecution.

What do you think? Are the parents overreaching or are they right to be upset?

Image: AnswerBag

Foster Mom Loses Job When Muslim Charge Converts

JeanneSager — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:26:00 GMT

A Muslim teenager's conversion to Christianity has prompted British officials to strip her evangelical foster mother of all responsibilities after ten years fostering kids for the government.

The woman, who has fostered eighty kids in the past decade, says she's being persecuted as a Christian. What's more - she says she tried discouraging the girl, now seventeen, from switching religions.

Not named because of legal reasons, the foster mother told the British Daily Telegraph that she offered the girl alternatives to living a Christian lifestyle, despite her own church-going practices. The caregiver attends an evangelical church and says family services was aware the girl had chosen to attend with her. They were OK with it, until the girl was baptised.

"I offered to take her to friends or family. But she said to me from the word go: 'I am interested and I want to come [to church]'," the woman told the Telegraph. Her case against the government - an attempt to regain her "job" as a foster mother (which did provide her income), is being funded by the Christian Insitute, which has charged the government with violations of both the girl's and women's right to religious freedom.

I'd tend to agree that a child of sixteen making a religious conversion is markedly different from a child of five or six (it's one reason I've always argued for baptism later rather than at birth). Teens have some sense of the gravity of decisions, and they're also relatively open to change. Teenagers like to make big decisions and take some control of their own lives. The fact that this girl had a troubled childhood, pushing her out of her home and into foster care, would understandably make her more willing to make a change in her life - especially one that would please a caregiver.

Does that mean the caregiver MADE her do it? Maybe. Maybe not. But maybe this could have all been avoided if the government either a. placed her in a home with a Muslim foster family or b. provided some means for the child to attend Muslim services, then checked up to see why she wasn't attending. At sixteen, she could have answered for herself.

She has answered for herself since. The girl is back with her own parents now and says she supports her former caregiver. She's staying a Christian, and she doesn't regret it.

So what do you think?

Image: BeliefNet

Lutheran High School Can Expel Lesbians—And Does

Miriam Axel-Lute — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:00:00 GMT

A California appeals court has upheld the right of a private Lutheran high school to expel students based on sexual orientation. Creepy as that sounds, I don't think the court is actually wrong. As long as they don't take one single of penny of my taxpayer money, religious organizations have the freedom to be petty, mean, and discriminatory in their own special ways all day long.

(For clarification: This is a school run by the "Wisconsin Synod" Lutherans, not Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is more tolerant.)

The school itself, on the other hand, which ended up in court because it did in fact expel two female students for having a relationship with each other, is wrong in so many ways.

I really can't say the main point much better than Shaun Martin over at California Appellate Report, who writes: "I know that if I taught at a private high school . . . I'd definitely spend my valuable time looking up the myspace pages of all the female students in my class to see if any of them said that they were bisexual or in love with another female student. Yes, and if I were the principal of said high school, and a teacher discovered that two female students had in fact so identified themselves, I'd definitely call them into my office and interrogate them about whether they had a consensual lesbian relationship. . ."

Not to mention the crazy power this gives mean, rumor-mongering teens.

And would the snooping stop with teenagers? If religious schools think they have license to control not only what happens in school, but the private lives of their communities, are parents of young kids in religious elementary schools going to find their kids expelled when it becomes clear that they aren't using birth control (not enough kids! need more tuition!) or don't attend church enough? I know in some dioceses unmarried Catholic school teachers have actually had problems with priestly peeping Toms trying to see whether they are having overnight guests.

According to the AP, the school's lawyer says the school's goal is to "educate based on Christian principles." I realize the world is full of examples to the contrary, but it's always been my understanding that the core Christian principles are supposed to be forgiveness and redemption. Oh well.

I guess the girls who were expelled will have a good chance to practice forgiveness, but I'm guessing there are more and more parents out there who are going to just opt out of schools like this in the first place.

Photo by Made Underground.

More by this author:

No Christmas Specials for Some Jewish Kids

Brett Singer — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:30:00 GMT

Dahlia Lithwick has a piece over at Slate that discusses which Christmas specials are OK for Jewish kids to watch. Not according to the Torah, which was written pre-TV, but based on her discussions with a few families.

She found that her generation's Jewish kids were allowed to watch "one or all" of the following: How the Grinch Stole Christmas, A Charlie Brown Christmas, and The Year Without Santa Claus. Two of these are among my personal favorites, but I would include Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer in that list. Apparently that one didn't make the cut for the Jewish now-grown-up kids that Lithwick spoke to.

The reason surprised me – a "no Santa" rule. No Jesus, I get. Jesus is religion. Nothing wrong with religion, but if it isn't YOUR religion and you choose not to watch shows that feature religious elements, that's your choice. But Santa? Was he in the Bible? Frosty was also banned from some Jewish households, according to Lithwick, because of a "no resurrections rule", which I think is pushing it.

Here's the thing – I like Christmas specials. I even like Christmas music. And I'm Jewish. Obviously Christmas is a religious holiday for millions of people. But last time I checked, Rudolph wasn't one of the apostles. So I hereby give permission to all Jewish parents — let the kids watch Rudolph! Why deprive them of the joys of Rankin and Bass? The Island of Misfit Toys? Yukon Cornelius? Hermey the Elf who would rather be a dentist? This a great show! And The Year Without a Santa Claus? Heat and Cold Miser! This is good stuff, people!

Interestingly, A Charlie Brown Christmas does feature religion prominently. Somehow that made the cut in many Jewish households, according to Lithwick. Why? In my opinion, there are a few reasons. First, Linus says it. That makes it automatically more OK than if the same words come out of some claymation dog (Davey and Goliath, anyone?). Second, it's done in the context of "good will towards men", which is hard to argue with. Third, it isn't presented in a way that says, "If you don't believe these words, you will burn in Hell for all eternity." It's actually quite lump-in-the-throat inducing, in a good way. Last, after Linus says his piece, everyone finally starts being nice to Charlie Brown, decorating his tree, and making nice warm and fuzzy holiday feelings. That's my theory, anyway.

Anyway, whatever your faith may be, or even if you happen to faithless, don't ban Christmas specials just because they happen to be about Christmas. Give 'em a chance. Maybe the kids will like it. You might enjoy it as well.

Oh, Merry Christmas. And Happy Chanukah.

Source: Slate

Review: Unstable Fables Goldilocks and the Three Bears Show

Kids Say The Cutest Things: Tuesday

Gifts I Want That I Can Pretend Are For The Kids

Most Tasteless Tree Ornament Ever

Are Email Holiday Cards Tacky?

Will Our Kids Be Allowed to Say Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah?

JeanneSager — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:59:00 GMT

I'm all for thinking the neighbor's holiday light show is just five blinking strands of twinkle lights this side of tacky, but telling someone they're being offensive to non-Christians? That's what they call political correctness gone wild.

A mom of three in England got a call from her community association, telling her she had to take down her elaborate display because it might offend the neighbors. Not that it was too big. Not that it was too gaudy. Not that she'd had it up since early November (who has the time for that? or the money to pay the electric bill).

Dorothy Glenn's kids are well past the Santa belief stage, but with three still at home, I get that she still wants to "do up" the holidays. So, apparently, do most of the people in her neighborhood, and the area politicians who have decried the community association for being ridiculous.

The problem has been solved - the lights are still up, but this kind of thing has made it harder to enjoy Christmas (or Hanukkah for that matter) with the kids. Instead of taking in the spirit with which tidings of joy are meant, people are quick to take offense at a "Merry Christmas" when they're not Christian or "Happy Hanukkah" when they're not Jewish. And lest you think the easy answer is to say "happy holidays," try standing in the post office, clutching your toddler's hand while an older member of your family's Catholic parish berates you for taking Christ out of Christmas. Not exactly what my daughter needed to hear - or me for that matter.

So what do we teach our kids to say? Happy Kwanahanamas? That way they can offend everyone. Or maybe their's will finally be the generation that just lets people be.

Image/Source: The Daily Mail

When Do You Make the Kids Give Their Toys Away?

Teacher Tells Kids: Santa's Not Real

Mom Gets Hate Mail for Ending Kids Thanksgiving Party

Would You Give Gifts Bought At Wal-Mart Where Man Died?

What Makes a Yuppie Parent?

Make Your Own Religious Doll

Brett Singer — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Doll Creation Station allows people of all religious persuasions to make dolls featuring the accoutrements of their faith. To be fair, the site only offers Christian, Jewish and Muslim dolls, but the company suggests that you "Check back with us as we expand into other religious and ethnic markets."

The best seller at the moment is "Set 3J", which is the Jewish doll.

The set comes with "a Jewish themed t-shirt and matching denim skirt, socks and shoes," as well as a "matching Magen David bracelet set for you and your doll as well as a silver plated matching Magen David necklace set for you and your doll!" But wait! There's more! "Dress your doll in a satin white and gold trim Queen Esther costume with gold crown and sceptre, and play Shabbat with a 10 piece wooden toy Shabbat Set that includes challah, wine, and candles."

Maybe it's just me but "Let's play Shabbat" doesn't really have the same appeal as "Let's play house." But again, maybe that's just me.

Also, if I were a more observant Jew, I wonder if I might be slightly offended by the idea of "playing" a religious ritual. Do Catholic children "play communion"? Also, is it fair to lump all of Christianity together? And what exactly does a "butterfly hooded sweatshirt" have to do with being Christian? (The Muslim doll sets include a "2 piece Hijab", which is more specific to the doll I suppose.) Will the atheist doll come with a copy of "The God Delusion"? (I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't think they will ever make an atheist doll. Although it would be funny if they did.)

The idea of dolls that better reflect the way the world actually looks is not a new one and it is important. But I always thought the point was more physical than spiritual – that is, all dolls shouldn't have blonde hair and white skin. The company does plan to expand to include other ethnicities, and offers a choice of hair color and type, so part of the pitch is definitely "a doll that looks like you." But another part of it is "a doll that shares your faith."

Would anyone out there buy a religious doll for their child?

Source: dollcreationstation.com

Joe Biden Is Our First Catholic Vice President

History Channel Debunks Thanksgiving Myths

GPS Lingerie Upsets Some, Entices Others

Joe Biden Is Our First Catholic Vice President

Brett Singer — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:00:00 GMT

For obvious reasons, Barack Obama being the first African-American President of the United States is getting a tremendous amount of attention. But we have another first: Joe Biden is our nation's first Catholic Vice President.

When I've mentioned this fact to people, they often express surprise. To those such as myself who are not of the Christian faith, it's easy to forget that for many people, the differences between Catholics and Protestants are serious. I'm not going to get into what the differences are simply because I don't feel comfortable doing so, mostly because I don't know very much about the topic. (True story: in college, I saw a friend with schmutz on her forehead. I went to wipe it off; she jumped back and became very annoyed with me. It was Ash Wednesday. Somehow, despite growing up in New York City, I had never heard of Ash Wednesday before. I was embarrassed, but at least I never did that again.) The website religionfacts.com has an interesting chart. Some highlights: Catholics include the apocrypha as part of the Bible, Protestants don't. Catholics are "Free to do good or evil", Protestants are "Free only to do evil." (There's something to chew on for awhile.)

Anyway, when I point out to people that the U.S. has only had one Catholic President in its entire history (JFK), the idea that it has taken this long to have a Catholic VP isn't as big a surprise.

For some Catholics, Biden doesn't quite cut it. There's even a blog called "Catholics Against Joe Biden." It shouldn't surprise you that the authors of said blog were less than thrilled with Joe's history making victory.

So what's the big deal? Why just one Catholic out of 44 Presidents of these United States? According to Answers.com:

Even though Catholicism is the largest denomination in the United States, making up about 26% of Americans, it has not been looked upon favorably by all the other protestant Americans. Throughout history there have been fears of Catholics and the believe [sic] that the Holy Father, or the Pope might have control over American politics if a Catholic were to take power. There have been many attempts to block Catholics from office and even limit their right to vote in early American history.

So if we elect a Catholic, then the Pope is in charge. Interesting theory. Kind of like the "if we elect Barack Obama, he'll enact some secret liberal agenda." Well, not quite. But surprisingly similar. (I'm not equating the Pope with a secret liberal agenda, only the notion that somehow electing a President means that we're actually getting some sort of shadow government.)

Again, I want to point out that this is not a topic (Catholicism) that I am well versed in, but I thought it was interesting enough to point it out. If anyone has any additional info they want to add, please do so.

Also interesting is the fact that Obama, "won a majority of the Catholic vote" (AP). John Kerry did not – despite being a Catholic himself. (The general consensus is that Catholics paid less attention to which candidate shared their religious beliefs and more attention to the economy this time around, although that's a difficult thing to gauge, of course.) And Peter Steinfels, writing in the New York Times, said that, "Anyone constructing a list of the big losers on Tuesday would probably include the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops." And a Google search for obama catholic vote has over 350,000 matches. Clearly it's a big issue for a lot of people.

Do you think that the fact that Joe Biden is our first Catholic Vice President is significant?

Image: commonwealmagazine.org

Rocco Ritchie wears Yankee shirt, Guy Ritchie weeps

The Obamas wear cheap clothes

Another non news photo

Why Are The Grown Up Costumes For Women So Slutty?

Barack Obama Asked If Bill Clinton Was The First Black President

Other Stuff to Vote On Today – Same Sex Marriage, Chicken Cages

Not that there's Anything Wrong with It!

Shannon LC Cate — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:45:00 GMT

It is well documented that Barack Obama is a Christian. In fact, some of you may remember a dust-up during the primaries in which his Christianity was critiqued via the minister of his Church, one Reverend Wright. So how is it that his detractors are now so invested in propagating the misinformation that he is Muslim? It hardly seems fair.

But what's worse to me is the fact that I have not heard anyone until now, say, "SO WHAT IF HE WAS A MUSLIM?"

First of all, I'm not naive, and I am well aware of the political ramifications and the reason why no Muslim in my lifetime will probably ever be president. But there you go. Folks need to stop pretending that race, ethnicity, religion, mother tongue, class and education magically don't matter anymore in America and we're all past that now. If we were past that, a biracial man whose mother and grandmother and grandfather were all poor, midwestern white people would not be considered to automatically be "anti-white" or to "think white people are all trash." If we were past all that, no one would care if or where Obama went to church or who his preacher was. "Muslim" would not be a politically dangerous label. No one would call him an "Arab" and have it mean something so dirty that John McCain would have to tear the microphone away from her before she could repeat it.

Islam is neither synonymous with terror nor is it unAmerican. There are at least 5 million Muslims in the United States. The largest Muslim organization in the United States at the time endorsed George W. Bush in his first campaign for the presidency. If you recall, the margin of victory in that election was somewhat short of 5 million. It would be fair to say Bush owes his presidency to American Muslims. Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country. It is an American religion.

There is no religious test for political office in this country. We have this little thing called a First Amendment. All together now:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

image: sacreddestinations.com

Love the Sinner

Shannon LC Cate — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:45:00 GMT

News of Sarah Palin's "gay friend" is not much of a surprise when you take the ten percent rule of thumb into consideration. (That is, roughly 10% of the population is something other than strictly opposite-sex oriented.) What's too bad is, unlike some pie-in-sky folks claim, just knowing or even "dearly loving" (as Palin claims to love her friend) a gay person doesn't make someone see that person as fully human or fully deserving of basic human rights. After all, we dearly love our pets, too. But evengelical Christians don't believe animals will be "saved" (most of them don't, anyway).

I grew up in an evangelical (though not politically conservative) family and church myself, and am somewhat versed in the theology that says all peple are sinners, all people are human and stand before God as individuals. There's no ranking of better or worse sins and it's not the place of any given sinner (everybody) to stand in particular judgement over the sin of another--or even what does or doesn't qualify as sin in the first place.

It's all well and good to "love the sinner and hate the sin" which has become the popular anti-gay rallying cry among evangelicals. It's just that you're not really saying much in a tradition that believes the world and its creatures is so very steeped in sin in the first place. Why single out homosexuality (for those who believe it is a sin in the first place, which is a debate for another time)?

I once received a card from a certain biolgical family member that read, roughly, "Congratulations on finishing your PhD! I am so proud of your wonderful accomplishment! I must tell you I am disappointed in the choices you have made about your lifestyle and hope you will leave your partner and return to God. Love, [name withheld to prevent familial embarassment]"

In short, "Congrats on the PhD, hell-bound homo!" Hallmark needs a section for that.

Knowing and/or loving a queer doesn't make a person "tolerant." I don't want to be tolerated anyway. I want to be celebrated and included and treated like a 100% fully human being.

Image: Will and Testament

Pro-Life Pharmacy won't sell birth control

Brett Singer — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:00:00 GMT

DMC Pharmacy, can we help you?

Oh, you want birth control pills. I'm sorry, we can't help you with that. No, we don't sell condoms either. How about this pamphlet on the Rhythm Method? Perhaps a new Bible? Hello? Hello, are you there?

The DMC Pharmacy in Chantilly, Virginia, is a Pharmacy with a Point of View. Basically, if you're going to "do it," you should be prepared for the pitter-patter of little feet. That means no condoms, no birth control pills, no morning after pill – nada. Zip. The "family planning" aisle will be filled with rosary beads, Left Behind novels and snacks filled with nothing but high (moral) fiber. (We kid, because we love.)

(Aside #1: I wonder how far the store will take this. Would they sell copies of "The Da Vinci Code"? How about "Hustler"? Jolt Cola?)

(Aside #2: Now, don't go to dmcpharmacy.org if you want to find the pro-life pharmacy. That site is for a different DMC Pharmacy, which is part of the Detroit Medical Center. I'm not sure if they'll sell you a rubber, but my guess is that they will.)

Tom Brejcha from the Thomas More Society is, of course, supportive of the venture. Brejcha is representing another pharmacist who refused to fill a birth control prescription on moral grounds. The Washington Post quotes the attorney as saying, "Every pharmacist has the right to do the same thing." According to the Post, "[The DMC Pharmacy in Chantilly] is one of a small but growing number of drugstores around the country that have become the latest front in a conflict pitting patients' rights against those of health-care workers who assert a 'right of conscience' to refuse to provide care or products that they find objectionable."

Now, we may mock (in good humor) the notion of a pro-life pharmacy. But I think they have a right to keep contraceptives off the shelves; I'm not a lawyer but I'm fairly certain that no private store has a legal obligation to sell any product that they don't want to. Manhattan is filled with drugstores advertising a staff that will help you get your health insurance company to pay for fertility treatments, which is something not typically offered at your local Walgreen's. Different strokes, different folks. I do have a problem with a pharmacist who works at a "regular" pharmacy (you know, the kind of establishment that will burn in eternal hellfire – OK, sorry, mocking again, it's just a joke! Ouch! Watch the lightning!) refusing to fill any prescription, or a health-care worker who goes against the policies of their employer. You are absolutely entitled to your beliefs, but don't you also have to do the job that you were hired for? That's another legal question I don't claim to know the answer to.

Obviously it would be a problem is every store took this attitude. Personally, even though I don't need birth control pills myself, I would gladly avoid a store that took a stance against them. The best way to stop stores like this from proliferating is simply to not shop there.

Source: thefrisky

images: Wikipedia (1, 2), and then futzed with in Photoshop by me

White House Slammed for "Sinful" Lesbian Photo

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 20:01:00 GMT

Now here's a way to drive up support for the administration: Post hot lesbian parent photos on the main White House web site. Finally, they're doing something right. Unless, of course, you talk to Stephen Bennett -- founder of the Stephen Bennett Ministry of Ignorance and Stupity or something like that.

Bennett is bent out of shape because a photo showing the devil and his wife, Lynn Cheney, holding their new grandson included a caption explaining that the boy's parents are Cheney's daughter and her partner.

And because there's really nothing important going on in the world today, Bennett took time out of his insanely busy schedule to say, "I say shame on the White House, shame on the president and shame on the vice president for allowing such a caption to be 'officially' added onto the White House website and such a beautiful photo of two happy grandparents and their new grandchild."

Huh? Did you miss the controversy? What's the crime here, you ask? Why is Bennett so fumed? The caption listed Mary Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, as "parents." And because lesbians obviously can't parent in any way, Bennett goes on to give a ninth-grade biology lesson on birds and bees and then throws his hands in the air and orders a "massage" from Ted Haggard. Tool.

Georgia Schools Must Not Teach the First Amendment

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Thu, 03 May 2007 19:51:00 GMT

I lived in Florida for 21 years and I used to get really sick of people making fun of the south for being backward. I guess there is some truth to every stereotype. Georgia has started offering state funded bible study classes. I wish I was kidding.

Even though I attended a southern college I was a Political Science major and I clearly remember learning about both freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Look, I understand that they are offering this as an elective, and I get that it could be classified as a general religion course but something just doesn't sit right with me.

Maybe I am nervous about the direction the federal government seems to be heading. Maybe I'm still bitter because you were much more likely to get into my high school's show choir if you went to my director's church. Maybe I'm concerned for my children.

Or maybe it is the sentence: The Georgia law allowing the state-funded Bible classes won overwhelming approval last year from both Democrat and Republican lawmakers.

Either way, I think that the Georgia State legislature might need to brush up on constitutional law or strongly consider funding electives studying other religious texts as soon as possible.

School Terror Drill Irks Christian Parents

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 13:33:00 GMT

A rag tag group of right-wing religious fundamentalists stormed a New Jersey school with guns because a girl was expelled for praying before class. At least that's the script of a police drill that is driving Christians crazy in this sacred time of recognizing the Easter Bunny as the holiest of holies.

In a drill designed to improve responses to school hostages crises, police decided to write a script that involves the "New Crusaders" storming the school to seek revenge for the made-up prayer expulsion. Though the word "Christian" wasn't used in the script, some Christians are nonethless put out, arguing the drill amounts of religious intolerance.

My favorite part of the story was this quote from one outraged person:

"This is an unreal scenario, like I said. No child can be expelled for praying in a school since it's legal; therefore, the parents wouldn't have gotten mad, they wouldn't have used guns. If a school district had expelled a girl for praying in class, the parents would have shown up with attorneys, not with pistols."

Forget turning the other cheek. Real Christian parents sue.

Are You Christian? God Gangs Takeover High Schools?

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:10:00 GMT

A friend of the family is a teacher at the same high school ~~I dropped out of~~ from which I graduated, and he tells the story of a freshman girl who was approached by a group of five older boys in a secluded hallyway.

"Are you Christian?" they asked. The young girl declined to state, and the boys were pissed. "We're going to kick your ass," they said. Thankfully another student wandered by at the time and broke up the ensuing melee.

It's a new thing in this school, apparently. Either profess your love of a the Christian god or face an ass-whooping. No joke. The school I'm talking about ain't in the Bible Belt. We're talking about Northern California -- not too far from the site of the "Summer of Love" not too many decades ago.

The story had me wondering whether this was just a crazy fluke -- school kids hopped up on Jebus Juice or whatever -- or whether this is a new phenomenon facing kids across the country. Have you heard of something like this before?

BattleCry To Teens: Be A "Stalker of God." Whatever That Means...

Alisyn — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:27:00 GMT

BattleCry is a roving evangelical festival - a Christian Lollapalooza, if you will - that is gripping the religious youth of the nation. Just this past weekend, over 22,000 teenagers gathered at San Francisco's AT&T Park to pray, sing, and listen to Christian bands. Kids came from as far away as Los Angeles to participate in the cross-cultural gathering, which also included speakers (a "former Islamic terrorist" among them), and stand-up comedians ("What would an atheist praise song be? 'Who gives us reason to live? No one!').

BattleCry founder Ron Luce believes teens today are barraged by sex, violence and immorality at every turn, and that they need a Christian alternative. BattleCry's website roars "A stealthy enemy has infiltrated our country and is preying upon the hearts and minds of 33 million American teens. Corporations, media conglomerates, and purveyors of popular culture have spent billions to seduce and enslave our youth. So far, the enemy is winning." But, Luce reassured his young San Francisco audience, "We will not allow the enemy to steal this generation!"

Luce spoke about the "levels" of Christians he sees in the world: "Seekers" are Christians who regularly go to church and bible study groups, but "waver when it's convenient"; "Students" are Christians who "aggressively" read the Bible to learn more about Christ's teachings; "Stalkers" or "criminal stalkers"... "are so committed to finding out information (about God), they find out stuff no one else knows." (Huh?) As he read verses from the book of Psalms and the word "stalker" flashed on a giant TV screen behind him, Luce said approvingly, "That's a stalker talking... will you go way out into the deep and be a stalker, a stalker of God?"

...Aaaaaaand that's where he lost me. "Criminal stalkers of God" - I don't even know what that means. What would a "criminal stalker" of God do - go through His trash, follow Him to the grocery store, call Him and hang up - that sort of thing? What would a misdemeanor stalker of God do - like, maybe just peep on God? Could I still be a good Christian if I don't want to stalk anyone at all? Would God think I'm a pussy?

Maybe it's it just my agnosticism talking, but I think it's dangerous, irresponsible even, to spinning Christianity in this way. Isn't this what Christians would call "fanaticism" if it were being spoken is Arabic? And what's with the fear tactics - what's with scaring the shit out of children in the name of God? Enemies, prey, infiltration, stalkers... how are these things related to the teachings of Christ? How is this kind of fear mongering and "us vs. them" mentality going to save our the hearts and minds of our children?

"Christian" Pediatrician Denies Care To Sick Child With Tattooed Mom

Alisyn — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:03:00 GMT

Doctor Gary Merrill says he was just "following his beliefs" when he refused to treat Tasha Childress' toddler-aged daughter for an ear infection, because her mother had visible tattoos and piercings. And despite the negative press he's getting for it, Dr. Merrill says he'd do it again, to ensure the patients he does deem holy enough to treat, have a more "comfortable" and "Christian" atmosphere.

According to the American Medical Association, Dr. Merrill's practice of turning sick people in need away based on their - or their parent's - physical appearance is no big deal. But it was a huge deal to Tasha Childress and her sick babe. “I felt totally discriminated against, like I wasn’t good enough to talk to,” she said, and rightly so. "Really, it didn’t matter what he didn’t want to see us for. It isn’t right."

Childress says she wants the policy to be changed immediately, and an apology from the doctor for making her feel like an outsider. Merrill says he will continue to enforce the rules he has in place, which even include no chewing gum in his office. I say... who knew that God hated gum?

Do Kids Need Religion? Daddy Blogger Says, "Hell No!"

JasonAvant — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 11:24:00 GMT

One of the biggest questions my wife and I have mulled over is that of Lucas' religion. See, we're a mixed bag - Beth and I are both the product of interfaith marriages, with one Jewish and one Christian parent (to paraphrase Adam Sandler, put us both together, what a fine looking Jew!). We've done some spiritual window-shopping. We once attended a local service at a Unitarian church, and we met with a "progressive" rabbi, a meeting that went well, right up until we asked if we could still have a Christmas tree, in keeping with the traditions of one half of our collective family - based on the frosty reply we received, we might as well have asked if we could serve pork chops at the next Passover seder.

Chip over at Daddy Dialectic tackles the question head on: does a child need religion? His answer is an emphatic and thoughtful "no".

"Morality and ethics," he argues,"don't come from believing in god, or from being attached to a particular religious community. Those values come from within, and they are reinforced by the way adults explain what's right and wrong, and how those adults themselves behave." Chip also stresses that lack of belief doesn't prevent him from making sure that his kids are well-versed in Scripture, be it Judeo-Christian or Greco-Roman; he's made sure that his kids are familiar with what various world religions are all about, to better understand a world with many different takes on the Divine. Which is good parenting, whether one's a true believer or not.

I still struggle with the notion of involving Lucas in organized religion; my experiences have left me a bit cold. I'm of the Organized Religion Causes WAAAAAY More Problems Than It Solves School (see the Crusades, Inquisition, the Palestine/Israeli conflict, and pretty much all of human history), but at the same time I consider myself a bit of an agnostic. I'm thinking I'll let the kid figure it out on his own. Faith, after all, should come from within.

Canadian Parents Claim Yoga Is The Devil

Patti — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 01:00:00 GMT

When I was a kid, the only time religion ever disrupted the flow was if one of my classmates happened to be a Jehovah's Witness. And it was a brief disruption: once a month or so, that kid would have to go hang out in the library for half an hour while the rest of us sang "Happy Birthday" and ate cupcakes. Those kids didn't even come to school on the days when we had Halloween, Christmas, or Valentine's Day parties, and they always had to do generic crafts while the rest of us made construction paper jack-o-lanterns or menorahs. No big deal, but then, this was back in the dark ages when we still had fully funded physical education programs that were taken seriously.

And what does P.E. have to do with religion? In Quesnel, British Columbia it would seem that the two are one and the same. Christian parents in Quesnel are furious that their children are being taught yoga as part of a program to encourage physical activity and reduce childhood obesity, claiming that yoga is a religious practice that violates their own belief system. "There's God and there's the devil, and the devil's not a gentleman," says rancher Audrey Cummings. "If you give him any kind of an opening, he will take that." Interesting response when the issue at hand is the Smarties and Aero bars filling the openings of fat Canadian children.

The opinion that yoga practice is unchristian is a common one, although many Christians not only disagree, they practice with fellow Christians at church-sponsored classes. How this BC school decides to proceed is undetermined, but for now, the school board notes that students, like my classmates of yore, can just leave the room.

God's Little Gold Mine

Patti — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:32:00 GMT

I was raised in a pretty strict and conservative Christian church, and let me tell you what, back then we did not have swag. The closest we ever came was this bracelet that you made at Vacation Bible School that had different colored beads on it, and each bead represented a different important thing about Jesus which I can't actually remember except the red bead was for blood, because, duh. The whole What Would Jesus Do? phenomenon didn't hit until I was in high school or so, and by then I was a total existentialist who believed in pretty much nothing but maybe getting a boyfriend some day, and WWJD was not my guiding philosophy toward that end. In any case, there were no Jesus Princesses in my youth. Plenty of bracelets, no princesses.

A decade or so ago when I was deep in the throes of misspent youth, I sometimes babysat for a friend, and her kid watched Veggie Tales. And I remember thinking "Hey, that's smart, a cartoon with a Christian slant. I bet they'll find a nice little niche for themselves". Boy, did I know how to call 'em. Little did I know that Veggie Tales was only an opening salvo in the marketing of Christianity Culture. Make way for Gigi, God's Little Princess. Looking like a cross between Eloise and Fancy Nancy, Gigi is apparently a response to the princess phenomenon that nobody with daughters seems to be escaping (if you can't beat 'em, etc. etc.). You can insert your own snark about Disney Princesses not being subservient enough here; I've shot all the fish in that barrel.

Recently Princess Gigi's had some serious success: the top Christian children's DVD of 2006, and the top selling Christian children's book "The God's Little Princess Devotional Bible", and a whole empire of other crap, with (probably) more to come. And fear not, parents of boys, your sons can bask in the glory that is Will, God's Mighty Warrior. Because girls are princesses, and boys are warriors, get it? Good.

While my churchgoing days are, except for holidays, pretty much behind me, I can't help but feel wistful for the days when I cheerfully went to Sunday School because I took it seriously, not because I had a bunch of paraphrenalia to inspire my devotion. When the prevailing wisdom was that Christianity meant humbleness and charity, not a full-scale marketing attack. When the bracelets were made out of pipe cleaner and plastic beads, not pink marabou. What would Jesus do? I have a guess.