http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/intolerant-muslims-complain-easter-egg-hunt-flyers-school/#MErjmiP5CXoOeuJo.99
Reported by Suzanne Hamner
Everyone is familiar with the saying, “If you give someone an inch, they’ll take a mile.” Whether it is realized or not, this is how special interest groups work, along with other groups who seek to enjoy protected status. Look at what has happened with the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, and Transgender) groups’ issues and the issue of homosexual “marriage”. Muslims have slowly inched in extras for themselves, such as wash basins in public areas for prayer time, praying in the streets in some cities impeding traffic, and working to remove all mention or display of anything Christian in the public schools while having prayer time allotted during school hours for Muslim children.
Each time a concession is made to a special interest group another demand for an additional concession is sure to follow. These groups will keep pushing forward until all their demands are met while denying others their God-given rights. It has been seen in a number of previous instances. It will continue to be played out until all others have their rights removed or until everyone who believes in the sanctity of God-given rights says, “Enough.”
I
n Dearborn, MI, home to 40,000 individuals of Arab descent, a harmless flyer passed out at a public school concerning an Easter egg hunt to be held at a local church prompted Muslims to “complain” about a violation of the separation of church and state, erroneously alleged to be contained in the First Amendment. 
The First Amendment contains no language, neither does the US Constitution, regarding the separation of church and state. Our founders recognized that individuals are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and government’s authority existed to preserve those rights. While government has no authority to “establish” any religion by legislation, the recognition of God-given rights along with their preservation is the foundation of our civil government.
Muslim parent, Majed Moughni stated to the Free Press, “It really bothered my two kids. My son was like, ‘Dad, I really don’t feel comfortable getting these flyers, telling me to go to church. I thought churches are not supposed to mix with schools.'”
Moughni also stated he would be opposed to the advertising of events at Mosques using flyers.
In the perfect example of a psychological mechanism called “projection,” Moughni stated he was worried that Christians were trying to convert Muslim kids through propaganda distributed at public schools.
Oh, give me a break! Here is a perfect example of the perpetrators (Muslims) of passing propaganda out in schools in order to proselytize accusing Christians of trying to convert Muslims. Muslims continually push to have their propaganda pamphlets passed around in schools in an attempt to recruit our children to Islam. And, not that a Muslim would practice any sort of deception, but I believe it is highly unlikely that a 7 and 9 year old in an elementary school would even know enough depth about the First Amendment to argue the establishment clause with regard to the false concept of “separation of church and state.”
Even more unlikely would be Moughni’s opposition to pandering for Muslim events. If Moughni is so opposed to any religious advertisement in public schools, then maybe he should address the mosque he attends about stopping Muslim proselytizing and prayer time for Muslim children in schools. I won’t hold my breath for that.
This flyer was only advertising an Easter Egg Hunt at a local Presbyterian church. The flyer advertised the “Eggstravaganza” scheduled for April 12 that features a tradition Easter egg hunt, an egg toss and a relay race. The flyer requested those interested to “RSVP to ‘secure your free spot.'”
It is not the Easter “Eggstravaganza” that is the problem. On the contrary, these Muslims have no problem with the pagan symbolism regarding eggs or the activities involved surrounding Easter as the heralding of springtime, including the visiting of the Easter Bunny and the presenting of sugary treats for the children. The problem is the “context.” If this event were held in a secular setting instead of a church, there would not be an issue. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make the leap that the White House Easter Egg hunt, a tradition for 136 years, is still ongoing with the Muslim-in-chief squatting there.
Pastor Neeta Nichols of the Cherry Hill Presbyterian Church, where the event is to take place, said, “It’s designed to be an opportunity to invite the community to come for a day of activity. There is not a religious component to this event.”
Kudos to Pastor Nichols to defend the community outreach of her church when so many churches are surrendering to the pressure of special interest groups. Community outreach does not always have a religious component.
To make matters more interesting, Greg Lipper, senior litigation counsel at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, aka liberal/atheist special interest group, has some concerns about the legality of flyer distribution in 
schools. Lipper’s concern is the school district favoring one religion over another. According to Lipper, schools can’t favor one religion.
The First Amendment indicates, “Congress shall pass no law” establishing a religion or inhibiting the practice of any religion. It doesn’t mention states or schools.
According to Lipper, “Children are more impressionable than adults, and elementary school children are more impressionable than other students. And so the school district has to be especially careful about appearing to endorse … a particular religion.”
American’s children are constantly exposed to “Secular Humanism,” which was recognized by the Supreme Court as a religion, in the school system daily. So, maybe Greg Lipper needs to explain why it’s okay for the schools to push that trash.
It is time to stand up and push back. Liberals and Muslims are bedding down together to attempt to subjugate Christians. There is no tolerance of religion from these two groups. There is no tolerance period exhibited by liberals or Muslims. Christians have been bullied into passivity to the point that it is being taught from the pulpit in many churches. Our God-given individual rights will be usurped by anyone and everyone if we do not stand and fight to keep them.
As my most beloved pastor is fond of saying, “Turn the other cheek doesn’t mean what has been taught that it means.”
What Did You Say? 
Comments on: "TYRANNY ALERT!!! Intolerant Muslims Complain About Easter Egg Hunt Flyers at School" (5)
Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.
That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.
To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”
The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.
Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/uploads/2011/09/divinity-law-statement.pdf
LikeLike
Your comment is articulate, but lacking in accuracy. The intent of the Founders was to guard against the Federal Government from establishing a religion like the Church of England with the King as the Head of the Church. While all this was being discussed, several States already had established an official Christian Denomination as the State Sponsored Church. Consistent with the separation of powers foundation, they wanted to make sure that the FEDERAL Government would not so the same thing and let the States alone.
Like many others, the Muslims want to shut up every expression of religious thought and belief EXCEPT THEIRS. I will continue to fight against that with my last breath.
LikeLike
While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church. Suffice it to say that throughout our history no court has ever held that the First Amendment means as little as you now suggest.
It is instructive to recall that the Constitution’s separation of church and state reflected, at the federal level, a “disestablishment” political movement then sweeping the country. That political movement succeeded in disestablishing all state religions by the 1830s. (Side note: A political reaction to that movement gave us the term “antidisestablishmentarianism,” which amused some of us as kids.) It is worth noting, as well, that this disestablishment movement was linked to another movement, the Great Awakening. The people of the time saw separation of church and state as a boon, not a burden, to religion.
This sentiment was recorded by a famous observer of the American experiment: “On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention. . . . I questioned the members of all the different sects. . . . I found that they differed upon matters of detail alone, and that they all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America, I did not meet a single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same opinion on this point.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835).
While the First Amendment also limited only the federal government as you note, the Constitution was later amended to protect from infringement by states and their political subdivisions the privileges and immunities of citizenship, due process, and equal protection of the laws. The courts naturally have looked to the Bill of Rights for the important rights thus protected by the 14th Amendment and have ruled that it effectively extends the First Amendment’s guarantees vis a vis the federal government to the states and their subdivisions–hence the law does reach the city councils and public school teachers. (While the founders drafted the First Amendment to constrain the federal government, they certainly understood that later amendments could extend the Bill of Rights’ constraints to state and local governments.)
I too would resist efforts to shut up expression of religious thought. In this regard, it is important though to distinguish between “individual” and “government” speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square–far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment’s constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views–in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.
LikeLike
Your statement, ““free exercise” clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views–publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion”, sounds right, but fails in application. As in the case of this school, Christian children, and their parents are CONSTRAINED in their speech, while Muslim children are AIDED in theirs.
Using your own argument, the silencing of Christians in public discourse is suppose to be as wrong as the Federal, State, City and City School Boards giving the Muslim children special wash rooms, and time off from learning to pray, ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. All those that share your perspective, (as well as your attempt to rewrite history to support what you want things to be), would be up in arms if any Church where to start demanding that their children get certain meals, provide teaching time and space for their children to pray in that school, their parents spill out on the public streets, stopping traffic, in order to pray.
That is why all your arguments, while attempting to rewrite history, falls short of any legitimate argument and revealing your real determination. The silencing of all Christian expression in any form, in any mode, in any place in society. As stated before, I will fight to my last breath to keep that expression FREE.
LikeLike
I read only that some parents have complained and not that anyone has been constrained–or aided–in their speech. Perhaps you know more about the case than appears in the post, or perhaps your projecting stuff into the story that ain’t there.
You also broach the subject to wash rooms and such. This gets into a related, but different area of law pertaining to religious accommodations made by employers and other institutions. Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. It covers this subject. I commend it to you. http://divinity.wfu.edu/uploads/2011/09/divinity-law-statement.pdf
LikeLike