The Silver Ring Thing

[groover]

ACLU Sues HHS Over Abstinence Aid

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 17, 2005; A10

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051601224.html

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit yesterday against the Department of Health and Human Services, accusing the Bush administration of spending federal tax dollars on an abstinence education program that promotes Christianity.

Filed in federal court in Boston, the lawsuit alleges that the programs and educational materials distributed by Silver Ring Thing are "permeated with religion" and use "taxpayer dollars to promote religious content, instruction and indoctrination."

Silver Ring Thing is a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit that promotes abstinence until marriage through its Web site, brochures, videos and seminars. Teenage graduates of the program, after signing a covenant "before God Almighty" to remain virgins, receive a silver ring inscribed with a Bible passage that the group renders as "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of sexual sin."

"Who would have ever thought we would see the day when promoting sexual abstinence among students would become an opportunity to communicate the Good News of the Gospel," the group's newsletter states. "Through our Silver Ring Thing program, students who are longing for sexual purity have the chance to begin again."

The organization has received $1 million in federal grants since summer 2003 and expects to receive $255,000 this year.

"The federal government should not underwrite the religious indoctrination of Massachusetts students," said Carol Rose, executive director of the Massachusetts ACLU. "The Silver Ring Thing is nothing more than a vehicle for converting young people to Christianity."

In a statement, founder Denny Pattyn said he had not seen the lawsuit but in general "is aware of the proper designation of the federal funds received and asserts that these monies have been properly directed."

Silver Ring Thing, also known as the John Guest Evangelistic Team, describes its mission as "evangelistic ministry" with an emphasis on "evangelistic crusade planning," according to IRS filings.

"The mission is to saturate the United States with a generation of young people who have taken a vow of sexual abstinence until marriage and put on the silver ring," according to the group's newsletter. "This mission can only be achieved by offering a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as the best way to live a sexually pure life."

The ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project won a similar case in 2002 against the governor of Louisiana for sponsoring a state abstinence program that furthered "religious objectives" and used taxpayer money to "advance religion."

HHS declined to discuss yesterday's filing because it does not comment on pending litigation, a spokesman said.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

------------------------------------------

If you wear the ring on the proper body part, I'll bet it really works!

[groover]

I guess no one's really disturbed by the federal government funding a proselytizing Christian group, besides the ACLU.

After all, this is a Christian nation, isn't it?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by groover

I guess no one's really disturbed by the federal government funding a proselytizing Christian group, besides the ACLU.

After all, this is a Christian nation, isn't it?

Upon who's say so?

Here's a little Civics refresher from the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

There is no State sponsored religion. Ergo, this is not a Christian nation....only a nation with Christians living there.

Ego?

[groover]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

That doesn't seem to prohibit government sponsorship of the Silver Ring Thing, though, does it? I imagine there must be additional precedents.

Oh my.


In one short, succinct post Groover inadvertently destroys the liberla fantasy of seperation between church and state somehow being written in the Constitution.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by groover

That doesn't seem to prohibit government sponsorship of the Silver Ring Thing, though, does it? I imagine there must be additional precedents.

Actually, it does.

Separation of church and state is the purpose of that particular clause. Our Fore Fathers were quite adamant about keeping the two separate. The Church of England [a state sponsored church] was the reason the Pilgrams/ Puritans came to the New World in the first place. They were being persecuted by the English government because they did not adhere to the teachings of the Church of England.

They came in search of religious freedom....not a Christian Nation.

Perhaps you should read it again, Brother Goodz.

Instead of reading what you have written between the lines.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Oh my.


In one short, succinct post Groover inadvertently destroys the liberla fantasy of seperation between church and state somehow being written in the Constitution.

Not exactly.

There is nothing written in the Constitution about owning hand grenades or protecting child abuse either, but we don't allow them.


I think my succinct post just destroyed the conservat-la's fantasy about what the Constitution allows or doesn't allow government to do, eh?

Originally Posted by Goodz

There is nothing written in the Constitution about owning hand grenades or protecting child abuse either, but we don't allow them.

Oopz. Goodz hit a foul ball into the crowd.

Ever heard of "laws"?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Ever heard of "laws"?

Ever hear of the Supreme Court?

[They're the ones who interpret the Constitution for our laws]

Hm.



Methinks thou dost protest too much.

And now that we're completely off the original subject..................

How about this.

Take the words of the Constitution that you posted, and explain to me in detail how they command a "seperation" between church and state.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

How about this.

Take the words of the Constitution that you posted, and explain to me in detail how they command a "seperation" between church and state.

"Congress shall make no law..."

And what law did they make?

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

And what law did they make?

Read for yourself, then:

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an 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 to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Read on:

Establishment of Religion

''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' 41 ''[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.'' Supp.3 However, the Court's reading of the clause has never resulted in the barring of all assistance which aids, however incidentally, a religious institution. Outside this area, the decisions generally have more rigorously prohibited what may be deemed governmental promotion of religious doctrine.

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment01/

I don't know how you argue with the above.....but I am sure the conservat-la's will find a way.

''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' 41 ''[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.'' Supp.3 However, the Court's reading of the clause has never resulted in the barring of all assistance which aids, however incidentally, a religious institution. Outside this area, the decisions generally have more rigorously prohibited what may be deemed governmental promotion of religious doctrine.

This is actually written in the Constitution? Or is this someones interpretation of it?

[RBS]

Actually, Alexander Hamilton later wrote in one of his Federalist Papers that separation of church and state was exactly what the First Amendment was written for.

This is one of the latest arguments that the religious right is throwing out there: that separation of church and state is nowhere to be seen in the Constitution. Just because it's not written in those exact words doesn't mean it wasn't the intent or how it is mean to be construed.

Intent.


Nice.

[walto]

I'm curious...In what relevant way is the passage of an appropriation bill allowing payment out of public funds different from passage of a law? Aren't special acts laws, or do they have to be general laws to be laws?

[Coda]

I don't think the majority of republicans are religious. Is there a statistic somebody could point to that shows the % of republicans who are? Prior to GWB coming to power I never heard either side talk so forcefully about religion and politics.

Where did this come from? It seems to be a fad theme to broad brush the population and polarize the liberal base. In God we Trust has been on our currency for as long as I've been alive, why is this now forbidden? I would think if this and the pledge of allegence are examples of bridging the separation of church and state that they would have been argued and debated hundreds of years ago.

If you're trying to say that the religious right blindly vote republican, the same can be said about the black population blindly voting democratic....
...but that would be a racist statement. Right?

[walto]

Incidently, FWIW, my general take on this issue is that I'm not anti-abstention teaching. I think abstention from sexual intercourse isn't such a bad idea for 13-year-olds. But I don't see what the hell any of thathas to do with Jesus or xtianity, and even if it does, I don't want cultists instructing my children--either with or without public funding.

[walto]

they would have been argued and debated hundreds of years ago.

As a matter of fact, they have been argued and debated numerous times over the last hundred years. You have to get out more.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Coda

I don't think the majority of republicans are religious.

iirc, every survey I've ever seen on the matter pegs belief in God, in the US, at around 95%. This means that not only are most Republicans religious but so are most Democrats. Indeed, virtually any group has a religious majority. Maybe except atheists (and, hopefully, Libertarians, but I wouldn't put money on it). Even allowing for some looseness in one's definition and survey takers' reluctance to admit disbelief, I'm afraid there's a strong general view in play here.

[Coda]

I agree with you Brian. I just don't think most folks who believe in religion are fanatical about it. Church on Sunday and prayers before bed is about as deep as it gets for most.

[Brian Olewnick]

Originally Posted by Coda

I agree with you Brian. I just don't think most folks who believe in religion are fanatical about it. Church on Sunday and prayers before bed is about as deep as it gets for most.

Sure, but however you want to define "fanatical", I think it's safe to say that there's a higher percentage of Republicans who fit that description than Democrats. It might not always have been so, but I think it's the case today.

[patricia]

I think that it's interesting that it is rare that anyone will tell a surveyer, who is a total stranger, that they don't believe in some sort of Supreme Being. I'm not sure that that means that they actually practice their religion, whatever it is, beyond, as Coda says, church on Sunday and bedtime prayers.
In fact, even people who haven't darkened the door of their church for years and haven't said bedtime prayers since they were children, when asked, will claim affiliation with whatever church they attended as children.
It's not easy to admit that one doesn't BELIEVE. But, that, IMO, doesn't mean they are religious in the classic sense. It's PC to claim some sort of spirituality, rather than admit that the chaos in the world is OUR FAULT, nothing to do with God's will.

[RBS]

Originally Posted by Coda

I agree with you Brian. I just don't think most folks who believe in religion are fanatical about it. Church on Sunday and prayers before bed is about as deep as it gets for most.

I don't think most are fanatical about it. However, there is a strong evangelical constituency that is somewhat fanatical, in my opinion. And they have strongly tied themselves to politics, unfortunately.

[walto]

I really don't care if it's "fanatical" or not. I don't want it taught to my kids in public school.

(Is Catholism fanatical? I don't know, but if one of my daughters wrote from a convent that she'd decided to become a nun, I'd probably try to have her kidnapped and deprogrammed.)