school administrators try to physically block parents from hosting jesus lunch

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Next time they're about to host this thing, a group of Muslims should go to that park, and host their own "lunchin", with Middle Eastern music, prayer rugs and Muslim prayers, and everything else having to do with Islam. Then just go to the school and tell the kids there's free food in the park, with a side of some religious indoctrination, except instead of Christianity, it's Islam.

I mean, equality, right?

There wouldn't be any kind of an outcry if this was about Islam, would there? Of course there wouldn't be. Right?

This would require all 4 of the Muslims in Middleton to be available over lunch.

[Daelak]

So what's an appropriate radius that "religious messages" should be outlawed near schools? Will you enforce that on Muslims as well? No prayer time?

It varies on the scope. You can't equate prayer with a 200+ congregation of both students and non-school personnel on school grounds during school hours.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

The public park is used by the school during school hours, ergo school staff and administrators have a compelling interest to monitor and advise especially when 200+ students are coerced into going there for lunch.

A judge would side with administrators on those facts alone. The Jesus Mothers don't have a reasonable explanation as to why they are bringing over a large portion of the student body for lunch to state a specific religious message. The judge would ask why hasn't there been a Jesus Dinner?

The school has no liability or compelling interest to intervene in a public park, which the city has simply allowed the school access when they want.

It is not school property.

It is public park.

No one is forcing any child to attend.

It is a gathering of parent's and their children and other kids who chose to attend.

You seem to not want to understand the very basic and simple facts about this situation. You are allowing your hateful and aggressive anti-religious views to cloud your judgement.

We get it, you don't like religion. Great. I am an atheist as well. I make fun of religious people too. However, I wouldn't negate their right to practice or spread their message to others.

[IIamaKing]

It becomes exclusive use when 200+ students, who are under there supervision, are coerced to go there for lunch.

No one was coerced, and no one is stopping any one from taking part. Your whole post is wrong.

[Nanaboostme]

Majority of our history was heavily influenced by religion, so it kinda does have a place in education from an academics pov (just not physically) - unless it's a religious school.

Religion as a english literature or in a history class, not promoting and spreading it to change the student's beliefs

[Daelak]

First you claim the park as having public access (which it does), then you incorrectly try and assert private ownership of the park during school hours (which it doesn't).
In other words, you are ignoring basic facts to support your idiotic bigoted conclusions because the facts don't support your hate.

When 200 students are at a non-sanctioned event on school grounds, the school and its administrators have a compelling interest to monitor and supervise. The law will side with the school.

[Naxere]

It becomes exclusive use when 200+ students, who are under there supervision, are coerced to go there for lunch.

Prove coercion. After all, the definition of coercion is: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

[IIamaKing]

It varies on the scope. You can't equate prayer with a 200+ congregation of both students and non-school personnel on school grounds during school hours.

Good thing its not school grounds, but a public park, in the vicinity of the school.

[ezgeze]

It becomes exclusive use when 200+ students, who are under there supervision, are coerced to go there for lunch.

Oh really? Would you care sharing where in the law you seen that?

You don't even understand the concept of coercion so to help you out, here you go.

co·er·cion

1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

No coercion exists in this case.

[Daelak]

What did you read? I read nothing that implied coercion.

Right, little Timmy won't go with his 200 other friends and classmates outdoors, with free food, because he would rather sit alone, by himself. This is blatant manipulation by adults to indoctrinate children during school hours.

[Deleted]

This would require all 4 of the Muslims in Middleton to be available over lunch.

Well, that might be true...

However, I still sense a certain level of hypocrisy with this issue, and I'm betting a lot of the people in this thread who have been saying how it's all good and fine for these Christians to bring their religion into this park and ask the children there to eat a "jesus lunch" would be outraged if it was a bunch of Muslims spreading Islam instead.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

When 200 students are at a non-sanctioned event on school grounds, the school and its administrators have a compelling interest to monitor and supervise. The law will side with the school.

It's not school grounds though.

You can't be this dense.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that might be true...

However, I still sense a certain level of hypocrisy with this issue, and I'm betting a lot of the people in this thread who have been saying how it's all good and fine for these Christians to bring their religion into this park and ask the children there to eat a "jesus lunch" would be outraged if it was a bunch of Muslims spreading Islam instead.

Yes, I would have no doubt that would happen.

However, that doesn't negate the fact that the Muslims would have every right to be in the park and offer lunch and a spiritual message to anyone freely attending.

[ezgeze]

When 200 students are at a non-sanctioned event on school grounds, the school and its administrators have a compelling interest to monitor and supervise. The law will side with the school.

There is nothing stopping them from sitting down and eating a chicken sandwich with the students. Even the mothers have invited them to participate.

Also, its not school grounds. Why do you keep implying its school property when it isn't?

[Daelak]

The school has no liability or compelling interest to intervene in a public park, which the city has simply allowed the school access when they want.

It is not school property.

It is public park.

No one is forcing any child to attend.

It is a gathering of parent's and their children and other kids who chose to attend.

You seem to not want to understand the very basic and simple facts about this situation. You are allowing your hateful and aggressive anti-religious views to cloud your judgement.

We get it, you don't like religion. Great. I am an atheist as well. I make fun of religious people too. However, I wouldn't negate their right to practice or spread their message to others.

Of course the school has liability when 200+ students and non-school personnel are on campus with said students. The school uses the public park during school hours, any judge would throw this line of reasoning out the window.

Right, like free food and hanging out with your friends and classmates outside in the hundreds is something a child would avoid.

[Galluccio]

I think restricting what we call "education" is censorship. I find it humorous that people who claim to be educated would censor learning. What else do you want to censor? What's next? Some of the most educated people in the world know the beliefs of different religions. I think it comes down to fear. People who claim to be academic are just fearful of letting in any ideas such as religion.

[Endus]

Prove coercion. After all, the definition of coercion is: persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.

"Coercion" is a non-starter, yes, but "lured" fits.

On a side note; if they're feeding 400 students once a week, I have to ask if the city requires a permit for events of that size in the public park (and whether they have such a permit), as well as whether they'd be expected to abide by health code standards and such for food service. Since this isn't just a friendly group of a couple dozen students, at this point. They should be meeting the same kind of health standards as soup kitchens and the like.

[IIamaKing]

Right, little Timmy won't go with his 200 other friends and classmates outdoors, with free food, because he would rather sit alone, by himself. This is blatant manipulation by adults to indoctrinate children during school hours.

How dare those monsters offer food to hungry kids at lunch time

[Endus]

Of course the school has liability when 200+ students and non-school personnel are on campus with said students. The school uses the public park during school hours, any judge would throw this line of reasoning out the window.

It isn't "school grounds"; the school's leased the park for non-exclusive use during school hours. The public are still free to use it during that period.

I might find proselytization to be a little weird, but it's not illegal.

[IIamaKing]

Well, that might be true...

However, I still sense a certain level of hypocrisy with this issue, and I'm betting a lot of the people in this thread who have been saying how it's all good and fine for these Christians to bring their religion into this park and ask the children there to eat a "jesus lunch" would be outraged if it was a bunch of Muslims spreading Islam instead.

Whats the point in muddying the waters of this discussion with a hypothetical?

[Deleted]

What if we replace the religion with another? Do the quotes from the news article still ring true?

From http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/...sus-lunch.html

“These ongoing attempts to suppress free speech by school officials are disgraceful,” said Phillip Stamman, an attorney representing the moms. “These mothers devote hours each week to serving the students with free meals and a brief message about Islam. They should not be bullied or harassed — but praised.”

“These women will not be intimidated,” he told me. “They are wholeheartedly committed to serving the students a free meal while sharing a Muslim message.”

In 2014, a group of moms started what would become known as the “Muhammad Lunch.” They would prepared home-cooked meals for their children and conclude the lunch with an inspirational Muslim message.

People still on the same page with it after a few words were changed?

Whats the point in muddying the waters of this discussion with a hypothetical?

It's not a "hypothetical". I'm making an outright claim that people are hypocrites, and they're saying there's nothing wrong with it because it's their religion, but if it was someone else's, they'd be outraged. That's not a hypothetical. That's a claim. I'm not muddying anything. I'm shining a light on the hypocrisy.