So, the ACLU is suing the US government over giving funds to the "Silver Ring Thing", an abstinence-only education group that also has a heavy dose of religious proselytization: they give the presentation to kids on avoiding sex until marriage, and then divvy up the group into "Christians" and "other", for further discussion.
I’ve posted before on abstinence-only education — I don’t think it’s a good idea. But legally, this has
got to be a slam-dunk: If the Silver Ring Thing folks were receiving government funds for doing presentations without any religious component to public school groups, that seems constitutional. And at the same time, if they did events with a religious message for church groups, that’s OK, as long as they were able to keep the accounting separate between the public school and the church events — a legal fiction, perhaps, but important.
If they’re mixing the two … TWEET TWEET! Constitutional foul!
[Right: Jason Williams of the ACLU taking it to a Silver Ring Thing defendant.]
I am pleased to nominate this post for the Blue Mass. Group’s “best post headline” award. Do I hear a second?
So I checked out the SRT website… its blatantly a Christian orgainzation. Check out May’s newsletter… a pdf document here.Note page 4. It lists each location they’ve been to recently, with the following stats: * date * location * attendance * number who put on silver rings * number who made commitment to ChristOn page 2, the SRT “was developed to reach students all around the world with the message of abstinence and the love of Christ no matter where they are located.”So, they’re getting Federal dollars and heading into schools with this? Yay, 1st ammendment! I sing.
Wow, they split the groups up to Christian and non Christian. I do not know much about this but I can’t believe they do that and expect it to pass the seperation of ch/st test.I have no roblem letting kids know about abstinence but we have to keep religion out of it.
Wow, they split the groups up to Christian and non Christian. I do not know much about this but I can’t believe they do that and expect it to pass the seperation of ch/st test.I have no roblem letting kids know about abstinence but we have to keep religion out of it.
I heard a recording of the “split” on NPR. The host talked about the legal responsibility to offer a secular alternative and actually said that it was for those kids who were “not ready” yet for the Christian seminar.
I agree. It makes sense to me. Exposing children to the Christian faith when they aren’t ready would be a terribl;e waste of tax payers’ dollars.
Exposing children to the Christian faith when they aren’t ready would be a terribl;e waste of tax payers’ dollars.Are you being sarcastic? The whole presumption that someone who isn’t an evangelical Christian just “isn’t ready” for it is pretty damn insulting.
So Brittain, you would rather waste hard earn tax payer money on converting children who are too young to be converted. Spending more money on a failed policy. That is the trouble with liberals. Spend Spend Spend
Brittain, I hope and assume that Troll is being sarcastic.
Interestingly, the Silver Ring Thing has changed a lot of the language on their website from what was posted last week. I see a duck and cover!