Another Student Challenges His High School’s Graduation Prayer

A few years ago, I graduated from Irmo High School in Columbia, South Carolina. Over the past few years, Irmo has been no stranger to controversy. In 1998, they cancelled a concert by the Indigo Girls due to the duo’s homosexuality. During my senior year, they tried to block the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance — in fact, the principal resigned over it due to his “professional beliefs and religious convictions.” While I was still there, they had a graduation prayer that was put up to a vote by seniors during English class… (oh, that I knew then what I know now!)

Not only did this take up valuable class time, it’s illegal.

Luckily, despite being in an exceptionally conservative area, a student at Irmo has challenged the graduation prayer.

Max Nielson is a senior at Irmo High School, an Eagle Scout, an International Baccalaureate diploma candidate and… an atheist! Thanks to the story of Harrison Hopkins, a fellow South Carolina atheist, Max learned of the resources available to challenge the graduation prayer at Irmo High School.

Max Nielson

He emailed the principal at Irmo, who responded to him rather quickly, directing Max to the district policy on prayers for school events:

Benedictions and/or invocations at high school graduations and athletic events are permissible on the following basis.

  • The use of an invocation and/or benediction at a high school graduation exercise will be determined by a majority vote of the graduating senior class with the advice and counsel of the principal.
  • The use of an invocation and/or benediction at high school varsity athletic events will rest within the discretion of participating athletes, cheerleaders, band members and other student participants with the advice and counsel of the principal.
  • The invocation and/or benediction, if used, will be given by a student volunteer.
  • Consistent with the principle of equal liberty of conscience, the invocation and/or benediction will be nonsectarian and nonproselytizing in nature.

What that basically means is that, because there is an established district policy, the principal can’t (or won’t) back down on the prayer. Max has been in contact with the Freedom From Religion Foundation to go through with this challenge. Keep in mind the district is notoriously conservative, so while there may be a lot of support for Max from faculty members and administrators, it could be dangerous to their jobs if they decide to speak out.

South Carolina has something called the “South Carolina Student Led Messages Act” which basically means that school boards or districts can’t alter, modify, review, recommend or otherwise censor an opening or closing graduation speech. A student chosen to give a speech at graduation could invoke Allah or Zeus or whomever without any consequence.

However, Irmo doesn’t do that. There are two speakers for graduation in addition to the student chosen to give the prayer. The prayer is a completely separate entity, complete with its own committee and everything. All of this is put up to a vote, but considering the environment and student population, the odds are slim to none that the prayer would not happen.

I remember voting against this in homeroom, but it was something that made me nervous and there were a lot of students who were openly supportive of the prayer. It’s great that Max is stepping up to challenge the prayer at Irmo High School’s graduation. The rights of the minority are not something to be voted on, and it’ll be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

If you’d like to get in touch with the district expressing your support of Max, please (politely) contact Irmo principal Rob Weinkle and district Superintendent Dr. Stephen W. Hefner.

Colorado Governor’s Day of Prayer Proclamations Ruled Unconstitutional!

This is a big deal.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation just won a legal battle against the former and current governors of Colorado regarding their proclamations in support of the Day of Prayer.

The three-judge panel issued this unanimous ruling today (PDF):

A reasonable observer would conclude that these proclamations send the message that those who pray are favored members of Colorado’s political community, and that those who do not pray do not enjoy that favored status.

… the six Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations [2004-09] at issue here are governmental conduct that violate the Preference Clause [of the Religious Freedom section of Colorado’s Constitution]… [The content is] predominantly religious; they lack a secular context; and their effect is government endorsement of religion as preferred over nonreligion.

In short: We know you’re using your role as governor to endorse belief in god and you can’t do that.

The FFRF litigants wanted previous Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations declared unconstitutional and they want to prevent further proclamations from being issued. Initially, a judge said FFRF had the right to sue on behalf of Colorado taxpayers but the governor wasn’t doing anything illegal.

FFRF didn’t like that ruling and wanted to challenge it. The Governor didn’t like that FFRF had a right to sue. So they took the case to a state Appeals court.

There, the judges said FFRF still has the right to sue.

The Governor’s people didn’t want to address the Constitutionality of the proclamations — they just said it was a part of state history. But the court said that was a lie:

There [was] no indication in the record that, at the time of Colorado’s founding or at any time before 2004, Colorado’s governors had an annual tradition of proclaiming, separately from Thanksgiving, a Colorado Day of Prayer.

Furthermore, they said, it’s not a secularized day, like Christmas or Thanksgiving. It’s “avowedly religious.” The court then said “we conclude that the six Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations have predominantly religious content.”

So what would a reasonable observer think about the proclamations?

The court had an answer:

Looking through the eyes of a reasonable observer, we conclude that the Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations at issue here have the primary or principal effect of endorsing religious beliefs because they “convey[] or attempt[] to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.”

As a result of the ruling, all six of the Day of Prayer proclamations from 2004-2009 have been ruled unconstitutional. Whether the governor can issue proclamations in the future is still up in the air — they’ll figure that out next.

So will this affect the National Day of Prayer? Nope. That’s a separate issue.

What about proclamations regarding the Day of Reason? No idea… it’s likely those will be just fine… unless a religious group wants to say in court that supporting Reason is somehow anti-religious… it may be true, but I don’t think any religious group wants to say that out loud :)

FFRF’s litigation attorney Richard L. Bolton gets the credit for making this happen, as do the Colorado taxpayers who sued in the first place: Mike Smith, David Habecker, Timothy G. Bailey and Jeff Baysinger.

The Memorial Cross in Woonsocket Needs to Get Off Government Property

There’s a memorial in Woonsocket, Rhode Island dedicated to local veterans killed in World Wars I and II. It was built in 1921. It sits on government property. And it looks like this:

My first thought when I heard about the story was that it was similar to the 9/11 Cross and Seven in Heaven Way. Basically, it was a delicate issue. For a lot of people in the community, this was less a Christian symbol than a symbol of those who lost their lives in war. Any attempt to remove it would likely be seen as an insult to the veterans instead of a patriotic support of church/state separation. It wasn’t that atheists shouldn’t go after this Constitutional violation — we should — but we had to be very careful with how we approached them.

Now that I’ve seen how the town’s reacted, though, I’m less interested in being sensitive to their mindsets…

First, the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter (PDF) to Mayor Leo Fontaine urging him to remove the cross, listing all sorts of reasons this was impermissible:

Senior Staff Attorney Rebecca Market noted in FFRF’s letter that it’s illegal for the city to display “patently religious symbols and messages on city property.” The website impermissibly demonstrates a preference for religion over nonreligion. The Latin cross at the fire station demonstrates Woonsocket’s preference for Christianity over other religions and nonreligion. Such government endorsements of religion runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

Of course, the thought of moving the cross to a private location has everyone flipping out:

An estimated 1,500 people turned out Wednesday to defend a Rhode Island war memorial topped with a cross that has drawn a complaint from an atheist group.

The event was organized by the former head of the Rhode Island National Guard. Maj. Gen. Reginald Centracchio said the monument isn’t forcing religion on anyone.

“This is a war memorial. It’s part of our history. It’s a historical artifact. The line in the sand is right here. It stops here. My fear is if we don’t succeed here, the next step will be Exeter cemetery and after that, Arlington,” Centracchio said.

Of course, no one’s going after the religious emblems at Arlington — those are optional and the choice of the next-of-kin of the deceased. There are also a variety of symbols (including an atheist one) available. That’s a far cry from the Woonsocket Cross, which suggests that all the local war veterans were Christians. Even if they were, that’s still a symbol that ought to be placed in a church, not government property.

FFRF has the upper hand here, since they’re right and the city can’t afford a legal fight:

The Woonsocket Call reported April 23 that the city is exploring its options. “I have no intention of removing the cross under any circumstances,” the newspaper quoted Fontaine saying.

But, Fontaine said, it may be necessary to move the monument to private property. City Council President John Ward said the city, which is in dire financial straits, can’t afford a costly legal battle. “I would not vote to pay to defend it,” Ward said.

The city has set up a war memorial fund just in case they decide to defend themselves in the legal battle they’re going to lose, and Liberty Counsel (a Christian Right group) has offered to defend them for free.

Also, last week, FFRF’s Annie Laurie Gaylor appeared on FOX News with Mayor Fontaine to discuss the memorial cross:

Like most defenders of illegal religious artifacts, Fontaine’s defense is basically “It’s always been here, so that automatically makes it right.” Annie Laurie doesn’t let him get away with it and good for her on that.

(Incidentally, there’s one atheist group that claims to oppose FFRF’s efforts to remove the cross, but I’ve heard from my own sources that many members of that group don’t feel the same way.)

Ultimately, FFRF is right and the Mayor of Woonsocket needs to move the cross to private property. It’s an easy move and it saves the town the trouble of losing money in a lawsuit. Too bad the Christian citizens protesting against the Constitution can’t see that doing the right thing is in their best interest.

The War on Christmas is Already Beginning

For years now, Loudoun County, Virginia officials have been trying to figure out how to handle holiday displays on public property — the county courthouse.

Last Winter, they opened the floodgates and allowed all groups that wanted them to have displays. Of the 10 displays, most of them came from non-Christians :)

This year, they’re not taking that chance. The Loudoun County Courts Grounds and Facilities Committee met earlier this week to discuss the issue.

Committee member John Mileo argued that the county was best protected from legal challenges by limiting the display items to those that “pay homage to Christmas,” such as a crèche, Christmas tree and Santa Claus.

Ummm… no. You do that and you’re gonna get sued.

Rick Wingrove of Beltway Atheists explained that at the meeting:

Wingrove said a secular holiday tree would be acceptable to him and his group, but they would actively oppose overtly religious displays on the courthouse grounds.

“The county simply cannot put up a Nativity scene,” he said, citing several court decisions. “They will be sued and they will lose.” He predicted the ensuing legal proceedings would cost the county $2 million.

They took some straw polls at the meeting to see where the commissioners stood.

What about the crèche, Christmas tree and holiday greenery display? Unanimous vote in favor of it all.

What about including a Menorah? It passed… but by a 5-3 margin. Close call.

A snowman? They voted against it. Because, you know, that’s just not godly enough.

This is a lawsuit just waiting to happen… especially when you consider the logic by the people in charge:

Mileo proposed that the county’s crèche be limited to “the baby Jesus in the manger, the Virgin Mother and Father Joseph on either side, and three farm animals.”

He recommended that the crèche be as plain as possible, “not an overly religious-looking crèche,” and suggested that angels not be included.

Because if you have Jesus, Mary, and Joseph… but no angels… it’s not religious looking?

I hope they’ve saving up taxpayer money because it’ll go right into the hands of whatever atheist group plans to sue them.

Meanwhile, in Henderson County, Texas, they’re debating whether or not an atheist sign can be put on the county grounds this winter. In addition to the nativity scene that’s already there.

For nearly a decade, Henderson County has put up a Christmas-themed display that includes trees, lights, Santa Claus and a manger.

Commissioners voted to put up the holiday display once again this December, but have yet to decide how to handle the legal questions before them.

(FFRF is already on that case.)

Look, none of these cases are that hard to solve. Either officials have to allow all displays — including those from atheist groups and Pagan groups and Scientologist groups — or keep the grounds free of faith during the winter. Pick one. I don’t care which. But if any government, local or otherwise, shows favoritism for one faith over other faiths or theism over atheism, we’re coming after you. And we’ll win. The law is on our side.

High School Holds ‘Fictional Character Day’; Atheist Student Dresses Up as Jesus

A couple of months ago, Summit High School in Spring Hill, Tennessee held a “Fictional Character Day” in which students could come to school dressed as their favorite fictional character. Like the Mad Hatter. Or Darth Vader. Or SpongeBob SquarePants.

Jeff Shott came dressed as Jesus.

Before class even started that day, Shott was asked by the principal and other staffers to remove his costume. It was inappropriate, they said.

Shott did what he was told, but he explained how everything went down — as well as the other problems with religion in his school — in the essay below, reprinted in the April, 2012 issue of Freethought Today.

For what it’s worth, the Freedom From Religion Foundation issued him a $1,000 scholarship as the first recipient of the Paul J. Gaylor Memorial Student Activist Award :)

Here’s his story:

I’d arrived at school this Monday before 8:15 a.m. and waited in the cafeteria until classes started, eating breakfast with friends and adding finishing touches to my Jesus costume.

The head principal, Dr. Farmer, soon came up and asked me to come to his office. The assistant principal, Ms. Lamb, and Officer Pewit, school resource officer, were waiting outside the cafeteria. Dr. Farmer asked me whom I was portraying. I told him that I was Jesus Christ. He said he had been hoping my answer would have been Zeus (or some other variation of a mythological deity).

Even though I’m typically very openly atheistic and have no problem discussing my views, I was a little distraught that all three school authority figures were addressing me at once. Dr. Farmer claimed I couldn’t have things both ways — I couldn’t complain about teachers talking about Jesus and also dress up as Jesus on Fictional Character Day.

I’d had a long talk with him earlier after my science teacher, in reply to a question about evolution, had publicly said things such as “Evolution is just a theory,” “I don’t believe it at all,” and, “We actually come from Adam and Eve.” It’s fairly clear that she openly advocates not only Intelligent Design, but straight-up biblical creationism.

I immediately asked her, “Can you honestly say that as a science teacher?” She told me that she could. That upset me a lot.

When I mentioned this to him, Dr. Farmer had wondered if we should just teach “both theories” equally, essentially advocating that we “teach the controversy.” I explained why creationism doesn’t belong in a science classroom, that my teacher wouldn’t be able to substantiate her claim with empirical evidence or the scientific method. I compared it to the “Intelligent Falling Theory” of Pastafarianism.

I also pointed out that by teaching the bible as true, she was teaching Christianity as fact, which further implied she was teaching that non-Christians are going to hell. He had said he would talk to her and give her a warning.

Now, he told me my costume was controversial and likely to disrupt the learning environment. I explained that my quarrel with my science teacher wasn’t one of personal offense, but of professionalism. I told him that by teaching creationism, she was teaching something unconstitutional and flat-out dishonest. As a science teacher and an educator, she was out of line teaching biblical creationism. She was only adding to the already dishearteningly prevalent misconceptions on the theory of evolution, the very basis of our understanding of modern biology.

Both principals said they were worried my costume would spark religious debates in every class and take up large amounts of time. I was sternly warned that if even one teacher reported the slightest disruption, I would have to take off my costume. Then and there, I decided to take it off.

Even though the vast majority of students in my school are religious, many told me how much they liked my costume and how disappointed they were that I had to take it off. Even my teachers thought it was funny. Only a very few of my peers said they thought it was in bad taste, and none did so during instructional time.
I wondered, if a religious debate had been sparked, wouldn’t it be up to the teachers to control the classroom and deal with students who actually disrupted class time? I was merely participating in Fictional Character Day.

When I went home, I posted photos and details of what had happened to the r/atheism section of one of my favorite websites, Reddit.com. My fellow Redditors were, with very few exceptions, overwhelmingly supportive and said my civil liberties had been violated. Many urged me to contact the Freedom from Religion Foundation, so I did.

I soon received a reply from FFRF Staff Attorney Rebecca Markert, who sent a letter to the school district on my behalf, and I greatly appreciate that.

Statistics show that the least trusted and most despised American minority is the atheist community. I, along with most of my atheist friends and family, have experienced this firsthand.

My younger brother and I have both been told that we are only atheists because we are possessed by demons. We’ve been told that when we read the bible as nonbelievers, the devil himself literally changes the words, making it impossible for us to gain an adequate understanding of the word of god. After telling someone that I am an atheist, it’s not uncommon for the initial response to resemble a personal attack such as “You’re a bad person,” or a threat, “You’re going to hell.”

One religionist asked me why I had become an atheist: “Was it family trouble, abuse?” Others assume that atheists are simply rebelling against “god and his rules,” or that we put as much “faith” in science as religious people do in their doctrines.

I’ve even met a very fundamentalist Christian who told me that science is a left-wing conspiracy made up of people rebelling against god.

Last year, a teacher leading the class in prayer openly criticized my brother for refusing to bow his head. One of his peers caught him reading my copy of Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, picked it up and threw it on the ground.

We smile whenever one of our friends tells us we’re on their church’s prayer list. I made one list four times in one day.

People seem less likely to treat you poorly as an atheist once they get to know you and develop a deeper understanding of the reasoning behind your disbelief. I post Facebook status updates of atheist quotes, YouTube videos made by atheists, etc. I share and explain my views and opinions with a sizeable number of the most devout Christians from my school and in my area, including pastors, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes leader at my school and other adults and teens.
I’ve had Christian peers say things like, “I read that debate on your Facebook wall last night, and it really made me think.” In fact, I first really started to get to know my girlfriend after she read some of my anti-theist sentiments on Facebook and struck up a conversation with me.

Being a bible belt atheist has highlights and lowlights. One of the best things any atheist can do, especially in the South, is to come out of the heathen’s closet. When nontheists are open with others, it debunks misconceptions. As Dawkins would say, we act as consciousness raisers, and if enough of us do so, we can shed favorable light on the atheist community and perhaps one day shift the statistics in our favor.

If you had told me two years ago that I would one day be receiving a scholarship and award from a group like FFRF as a result of my secular activism, I wouldn’t have believed you. You see, I was previously quite the quintessential, vehemently fundamentalist Christian — a young Earth creationist, a biblical literalist, a Calvinist, a homophobe — the whole nine yards.

It’s been two years since then, and, though it’s still difficult to wrap my head around the fact that I’ve won an FFRF student activist award, needless to say, I’m honored.



Alabama Town’s Religious Signs Come Down After FFRF Takes Notice

This is the way Sylvania, Alabama greets visitors to the town:

How did Ephesians 4:5 get in there…?

I don’t know, but four different signs use that same Biblical message to welcome people — and all four are illegal.

So the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent Mayor Mitchell Dendy a letter explaining the problem (PDF) last week.

To add insult to injury, attorney Patrick Elliott wrote:

The signs are not even representative of the beliefs of all Christians. To some, the Epistle to the Ephesians is a fraud, as many biblical scholars have said that Paul of Tarsus did not write it.

And just like that, the Good News was received:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has convinced the town of Sylvania, Ala., to remove four biblical welcome signs along heavily traveled city routes.

Sylvania officials have confirmed that the signs will come down today.

Wow. That’s all it took. No lawsuit. No angry words. Just a letter detailing the legal problems with the signs.

I’m sure that won’t stop local Christians from complaining that atheists are taking away rights they never even had in the first place, but it’s a victory nonetheless.

‘God Fixation Won’t Fix This Nation’ Billboards Go Up in Colorado

The presidential election is just under 200 days away and the Freedom From Religion Foundation is starting a billboard campaign aimed at preventing the “folly of theocracy”:

That “God Fixation Won’t Fix This Nation” billboard is going up in Denver (twice) and Colorado Springs (once). In other words, not far from the headquarters of Focus on the Family and Ted Haggard‘s former church…

“This is the launch of our election-year caveat,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor…

“God fixation is what is wrong with our nation, and we need to place our best energies, time and money in improving this world, and not worrying about an unknowable, unprovable afterlife, or expecting an imaginary god to swoop down to fix our very real problems,” Gaylor says.

All three billboards will be up through the first week of May, serving a dual purpose as opposition to the National Day of Prayer on May 3rd.

FFRF Offers $1500 Reward for Capture of Atheist-Sign Thieves

Regarding that atheist sign that was stolen in Streator, IL:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is offering a $1,500 reward “for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator(s).”

Both the theft of the banner and vandalism to its supporting posts are classified as misdemeanors. Because FFRF’s nonreligious message was targeted, the act also qualifies as a Class 4 felony under Illinois’ hate crime law…

FFRF is working to place a new freethought banner as a replacement within a few days.

“It is so dismaying to see mob rule prevail,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. ” This vandalism amounts to censorship and [suppression] of minority viewpoints. This crime against our banner shows the harm when a local government purports to create a ‘public forum’ for religion on government property. The only viewpoint that is going to be heard in [Streator] is a Christian viewpoint. There are tax-exempt Christian churches throughout [Streator] where it is appropriate to place Christian crosses and displays. A public park is not one of them.”


Atheist Sign in Streator, Illinois Has Been Stolen

I can’t confirm this yet, but commenter Hizakigp says the sign put up in Streator, Illinois yesterday by the Freedom From Religion Foundation has already been stolen. The posts it rested on are “bent badly.”

The sign in question is the yellow one in the background of the picture below:

The backstory is here. Updates are coming as I get them…

In Response to City’s Jesus Display, FFRF Counters with ‘Jesus is a Myth’ Banner

For five years now, city officials in Streator, Illinois have allowed a sign to go up in a local park reading, “Jesus died for your sins”:

Last month, they also allowed the erection of three Christian crosses:

This is the same park that hosted a nativity scene this past winter, by the way.

Eyebrows went up at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, I’m sure, when they heard about this. So they asked city officials what they were thinking:

The city’s attorney… responded that displays would continue to be allowed because the city is treating its city park as a public forum.

Oh, it’s a public forum?! You didn’t say! Well, that’s good, because it turns out FFRF has a sign to put up right next to the other ones…

That’s the banner seen in the background of the picture near the top of this post.

“We think the city would be wise to exclude all displays from the park. Our banner is a protest of the city’s continued decision to permit public property to be misappropriated to promote an exclusionary evangelical message,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. “There are tax-free churches on practically every other corner where manger scenes and crosses may be placed. City parks ought to be free of religious divisiveness,” she added.

The banner will stay there through April 13th. Say what you will about the bluntness of the message — the FFRF may very well achieve its goal of getting the city to stop treating taxpayer property like the outside of a church.

(Hey, Scientologists, did you hear the park in Streator, IL is a public forum for religious expression?! Get some of your signs up! Muslims, I’m looking at you, too!)

Happy Easter! :)