Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This time a language arts teacher in Irasburg, Vermont. His name is Wally Rogers. The ACLU sent a letter of complaint to the administration over a range of issues where this teacher is clearly using his position to proselytize his students toward Christianity. For instance, he handed out a flier to his students on why Jesus is better than Santa. Full text of that flier below the fold:
Why Jesus is better than Santa Claus Santa lives at the North Pole ...JESUS is everywhere.
Santa rides a sleigh ...
JESUS rides on the wind and walks on the water.
Santa comes out once a year ...
JESUS is an ever present help.
Santa fills your stockings with goodies ...
JESUS supplies all your needs.
Santa comes down your chimney univited ...
JESUS stands at your door and knocks, and enters your heart...
It's obvious there is really no comparison.
We need to remember WHO Christmas is all about.
Put CHRIST back in Christmas. Jesus is still the reason for the season.
Yes, JESUS is better; he is even better than Santa Claus.
Totally inappropriate in a public school. And there's more:
When Downs' daughter began the school year in September, he said, the Ten Commandments were mounted to the classroom wall, Christian books filled the classroom bookshelf, and a school-funded Web page, used by the teacher, included links to Christian Web sites...Of particular concern, the letter says, are links on the teacher's Web site to "evidence for creation" and an "Anne of Green Gables" link that sends students to a "Young Ladies Christian Fellowship" Web page.
The teacher's "accelerated reader program classroom reading list contains a large number of books with Christian themes," according to the letter. Gilbert writes that "the handout, 'Why Jesus Is Better Than Santa Claus,' is just one example, we are told, of the kind of material discussed and passed out in (the teacher's) classroom."
The school says they've removed a few items from the classroom and at least one link from the teacher's website, but the ACLU will continue to monitor the situation to make sure the teacher i in compliance with the law.
Comments
TOP TEN REASONS WHY SANTA IS BETTER THAN GOD
10. Nobody has to die to get Santa to like you.
9. Santa isn't going to send anybody to eternal torment in Hell just for being naughty.
8. Santa doesn't insist that you be absolutely perfect.
7. Santa doesn't send people to promise you better presents if you send them your tithe.
6. Nobody ever fought a war over different interpretations of "'Twas The Night Before Christmas".
5. Santa doesn't meddle in your sex life.
4. Santa actually delivers the goods.
3. Santa really *is* your father!
2. People don't automatically assume that you are morally corrupt if you don't believe in Santa, and most importantly
1. Santa actually shows up at least once a year to say Hi and take requests.
Posted by: The Professor | January 26, 2008 10:40 AM
Over and over again, we see a christian needing to "spread the good word", almost always to someone else's children without their parent's consent.
And they scream homosexuals are out to "convert your children!!!!!!!!!"
Freaks. I hope this teacher gets canned.
Posted by: Rick R | January 26, 2008 10:44 AM
This American Life had a show on Muslims in America that highlighted a case where a school brought in a "textbook" that said all Muslims are terrorists, after which the students started to bully the two Muslim girls in the school... with the encouragement of the teacher... who then began to tell one of the girls that she was going to hell, pulled out the old Jesus/candy cane stuff, and so on. It got worse than that... and it didn't really get any better. The absolute cruelty in that story is almost hard to believe.
Posted by: Bad | January 26, 2008 12:03 PM
For a minute I thought he lived in Iransburg ....
Posted by: Paul | January 26, 2008 12:14 PM
"Yes, JESUS is better; he is even better than Santa Claus."
Yes, but he is just as real.
Posted by: bernarda | January 26, 2008 12:41 PM
Jesus is Santa Claus for adults.
If you're good all year, Santa will bring you gifts. If you're bad, Santa will bring you a lump of coal.
If you're good all your life Jesus will give you wings and a harp and you can float on clouds. If you're bad, Jesus will turn you into a lump of burning coal that is alive and feels pain, and never burns out.
The supernaturally endowed Jesus is just as real as the supernaturally endowed Santa.
And remember, Santa is an anagram for Satan...coincidence?
Posted by: soboco | January 26, 2008 12:54 PM
"Over and over again, we see a christian needing to "spread the good word", almost always to someone else's children without their parent's consent.
And they scream homosexuals are out to "convert your children!!!!!!!!!"
This teacher is wrong. The classroom is not place to be trying to convert people. But in the larger context of the "Christian" or "Religous Right" worries about homosexuals trying to convert our children I see blantant hypocrisy here again.
I went to a forum hosted by some group that felt that the schools needed to teach the homosexulity was normal and good and that you are a bigot if you think it is wrong. They were lobbying the school board to have this as part of the cirriculum. Now I am not one to elevate homosexuality above anything else that the Bible calls sin. It is all the same to me. I do have a problem with them going in and teaching that it is good and that I am a bigot if I disagree.
But I do not begrudge them the free speech rights to be involved in the dialouge about what is taught in our schools.
If I go and try and have my say at a school board meeting you guys go nuts. If the homosexual or other group goes in is ok it seems. It seems like you may want to limit the free speech of others to ensure your own. This is exactly what you rightly accuse some Christians of. I just cannot figure out that at times you guys turn into what you hate in the name of a cause. Even if the cause is just. By the way if kids are getting beaten because they are gay then it needs to stop. That is a just cause.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 26, 2008 1:10 PM
Having grown up in Vermont, I have to say that I am really surprised to hear of such an incident in Vermont. My school did briefly try to force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, but there was never ANY intrusion of religion into the schools. Unless Irasburg has recently been taken over by evangelicals, this teacher is not going to get much local support. I expect that this will play out very differently from similar cases in the Bible Belt.
Posted by: Bill Poser | January 26, 2008 1:16 PM
King of Ireland wrote:
You are conflating "you'll criticize me" with "you'll violate my free speech rights." And I am the last person who can be accused of wanting to limit the free speech rights of those who oppose homosexuality; I have argued vociferously against such laws in other countries (they do not exist in this country, where we have the first amendment) and argued for maximum freedom to express one's anti-gay views, even for students in school. But defending one's right to be anti-gay doesn't mean I can't criticize those views. Criticism is not censorship.
And frankly, homosexuality IS "normal." It exists in virtually every other species of animal too. Are those animals "sinning"? I thought only humans could sin. Perhaps animals ate that mythical fruit as well? I'm sorry, but the fact that a group of bronze age nomads claimed that their god doesn't like homosexuality is utterly irrelevant to how our society should deal with the issue of homosexuality.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 26, 2008 1:23 PM
I go nuts when someone tries to say that a certain characteristic of someone is better than another characteristic. Being straight is 'better' than being gay. Being a Christian is 'better' than being Muslim (or Scientologist or I dare say 'Jewish'). People that pray are better than people that don't pray. Along that same lines I have a problem with someone teaching that homosexuality is 'good.' Its neither good or bad. Its part of natural world and some people (gasp!) are gay. We need to acknowledge that in schools and give the kids the tools they need to get through life ... whether they are gay or straight.
Posted by: yoshi | January 26, 2008 1:50 PM
Ed stated:
"And frankly, homosexuality IS "normal." It exists in virtually every other species of animal too. Are those animals "sinning"? I thought only humans could sin. Perhaps animals ate that mythical fruit as well? I'm sorry, but the fact that a group of bronze age nomads claimed that their god doesn't like homosexuality is utterly irrelevant to how our society should deal with the issue of homosexuality."
The last thing I want to do is get in some discussion about homosexuality. Why? You guys are exactly right when you say Christians are wrong on this issue. I agree and have told people this for years. There is a difference though between a Christian applying what we would call Biblical truth to a situation and missing the intent or what the Bible is trying to say and what the Bible actually says.
It says it is wrong. The Christian that makes it one of the really big sins along with drinking and whatever is legalistic and short sighted. As you advocate in the Tiger Woods post today we have to take into account what the person's intent is. I am afraid that God's intent is not portrayed by many Christians as we convey what we think is what He is expressing in the Bible.
But it does not mean the Bible is wrong. What is not portrayed is the love that God has for the person regardless of the sin.
I know this will elicit a response about why God tells them to stone him then. I have been thinking of a way to explain why the Levitical Law was given and how it seems to contradict many of the teachings of Jesus. Truth be told I am not sure really how to go about it. But I think we have to look at His intent. What was He trying to say? Or how were the people who recorded all this trying to express what they felt He was trying to say? As usual you make me think.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 26, 2008 1:51 PM
Well, yes, if what you propose is unconstitutional, like using a government entity such as a public school to purvey religious propaganda. It isn't about what you do, King, it's about what the government does.
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 1:54 PM
"I go nuts when someone tries to say that a certain characteristic of someone is better than another characteristic. Being straight is 'better' than being gay. Being a Christian is 'better' than being Muslim (or Scientologist or I dare say 'Jewish'). People that pray are better than people that don't pray. Along that same lines I have a problem with someone teaching that homosexuality is 'good.' Its neither good or bad. Its part of natural world and some people (gasp!) are gay. We need to acknowledge that in schools and give the kids the tools they need to get through life ... whether they are gay or straight"
You are exactly right about this. I cannot say I am better than anyone. Christians come off this way all the time. Believe me I have been thrown out of more than one "Christian" circle for pointing this out. The message should not be I am better than you come be like me. Believe it or not I quit going to church and I was a preacher. Why? Same reason they all looked at my past and decided that they were better than me because they grew up "moral". The message is not morality. It is GRACE. It is that we all blew it and need help. Better or not better is a wrong way to look at it. True or not true in how I look at it. I am a strong advocate of trying to discern two things:
1. Is there a God
2. Who is He and what is He like?
He is not like most of the people that are Evangelical portray Him in my readings of the Bible. That is a shame.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 26, 2008 1:58 PM
OP99
Like the disciples of Dewey have for years?
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 26, 2008 2:12 PM
Dewey?
Posted by: op99 | January 26, 2008 2:14 PM
Since homosexuality between consenting adults is not harmful in a secular context, the public schools can teach that it's normal and benign. The natural world is a perspective available to all religions, and exclusive to none (including humanism.) So promoting homosexuality as normal -- or teaching evolution -- are not intrusions of "religion" -- even though some religions reject the perspective of the natural world in favor of their own private sectarian revelations.
But the schools can't say that True Religion has no problem with homosexuality, and false religions have a problem -- or vice versa. That's a view that isn't open to all religions, it's picking and choosing who's right about God. Not the government's job.
The religious is any activity pursued in behalf of an ideal end against obstacles and in spite of threats of personal loss because of its general and enduring value.
- John Dewey
Yeah, right -- if a public school promotes "any activity pursued in behalf of an ideal end" or "general and enduring values" then that's unconstitutional religious propaganda, just like passing out Jesus tracts.
Posted by: Sastra | January 26, 2008 2:42 PM
King- Have you ever considered the notion that gay people might be sinning by NOT being who they are?
Posted by: Rick R | January 26, 2008 3:02 PM
"I know this will elicit a response about why God tells them to stone him then. I have been thinking of a way to explain why the Levitical Law was given and how it seems to contradict many of the teachings of Jesus. Truth be told I am not sure really how to go about it. But I think we have to look at His intent. What was He trying to say?"
This, I have to say, is not really the thought process or set of questions that immediately jumps to mind for me when I encounter someone who encourages murder.
"Hmmm, what interesting insights was he trying to express with these murders?"
:)
Posted by: Bad | January 26, 2008 3:06 PM
Bad Stated:
"This, I have to say, is not really the thought process or set of questions that immediately jumps to mind for me when I encounter someone who encourages murder"
What is murder? I can tell you if a guy was going on a train to kill a thousand people and I had to kill that guy to stop I think I would. I hope I would. I did not used to think this way because I thought it Non-Christian. My head came out of my behind lately and I started to think again and have change my thought process. Though I love and still believe in the God of the Bible.
Shasta stated:
The religious is any activity pursued in behalf of an ideal end against obstacles and in spite of threats of personal loss because of its general and enduring value.
- John Dewey
Yeah, right -- if a public school promotes "any activity pursued in behalf of an ideal end" or "general and enduring values" then that's unconstitutional religious propaganda, just like passing out Jesus tracts.
Well Dewey said he was going to use the schools. I will find the quote. I did go and read some of what he wrote and I have to admit I agreed with some of it. I just need to read more. But that the man had an agenda is not much doubt to me if my sources of info are correct.
King- Have you ever considered the notion that gay people might be sinning by NOT being who they are?
I would not agree with that but I have no problem with gay people. I do not hate them in anyway, shape, or form. I just think it is wrong. I think a lot of things are wrong. I come on here in pride sometimes and leave humbled by the well thought out arguments that I never thought of. I am wrong. I do not even agree with myself sometimes.
OP99
Dewey?
John Dewey
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 26, 2008 3:28 PM
I know this will elicit a response about why God tells them to stone him then. I have been thinking of a way to explain why the Levitical Law was given and how it seems to contradict many of the teachings of Jesus. Truth be told I am not sure really how to go about it.
Just say that Jesus had to deal with people more severely back then. And then explain why. Good luck!
But I think we have to look at His intent. What was He trying to say? Or how were the people who recorded all this trying to express what they felt He was trying to say? As usual you make me think.
You can do that with anything. You can do that with the Koran too. Just start with the premise that something is the "truth", and then make a bunch of lame excuses for why it sounds like it isn't but it really is.
But you already know that. So does everybody else too. So I don't see what the hangup is. People are goofy. :P
Posted by: 386sx | January 26, 2008 3:50 PM
The article takes me back to my son's senior year in High School. His English teacher was a creationist.
I had to deprogram my son and it took at least an hour. Unfortunately he came back with crap several times before it finally cleared his system.
Posted by: Bob Calder | January 26, 2008 4:47 PM
Being a Christian is 'better' than being Muslim (or Scientologist or I dare say 'Jewish').
Actually, I'd have to say that being almost anything is better than being a Scientologist, in that anyone who is a Scientologist has fallen for a particularly transparently obvious (and expensive, and dangerous) religious scam, and one that doesn't even have the slightly redeeming value of a few centuries of intellectualising behind it. Some of the conventional religions have sub-sects that are about that bad, but Scientology is the only one in that list which is uniformly as deserving of scorn.
However, the legal rights and privileges of Scientologists should be exactly the same as everyone else.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | January 26, 2008 5:38 PM
Far be it from me to defend one nutter from another but scientology is no more 'transparent' than other religions. Give it time and the intellectualising and apologetics will surely follow.
Posted by: JimC | January 26, 2008 7:01 PM
"What is murder? I can tell you if a guy was going on a train to kill a thousand people and I had to kill that guy to stop I think I would." - King Of Ireland.
Murder is unlawfully, and with malice aforthought, killing another human being. Mitigating circumstances, such as not being in your right mind, asleep, on medication, reasonable belief of harm to self (self-denense), and, as in this case,reasonable beleif of harm to others could reduce the charge to manslaughter.
In order to do this you would have to prove:
a) You knew that the person would kill others
b) That such a belief is one that a reasonable person would hold
I'm not at all sure how you could do this. Of course you could try other mitagating circumstances.
Repeat after me: "The devil made me do it" (Insanity Defense) :D -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 26, 2008 10:14 PM
This incident is kind of funny, since Bill O'Rielly has stated on his show that Vermont has been "taken over" by "secular progressives."
Posted by: daniel rotter | January 26, 2008 10:28 PM
DingoJack - don't forget that the thought experiment states that if there was no other way than killing the individual. I assume that King means to say that his (decidedly male, for a supposedly bodiless) deity had no other option than to kill the individuals (or order his followers to do so). Amazing that, for all the supposed omniscience and omnipotence that this being is credited with by most people, that's the best that it can come up with? I can see why, going back to the Israelites beliefs that the only difference between their god and others was that theirs was THEIRS. His people were the Israelites and no other. This meant that he was not all-powerful or all-knowing. Those attributes were added much later. For Pete's sake - YHVH couldn't even stop iron-wheeled chariots (going by a literal reading, not taking into account a more credible, realistic and militaristic reading).
Back to the thought experiment, if I knew that someone was going to kill thousands of people sometime in the future, and I had all the power in the world, well, it would be a simple task to let that individual be one of those millions of spontaneous abortions that happen every year. If that didn't solve the problem, then apparently there is something much larger than myself that restricts my abilities.
Hopefully King will post that Dewey quote (who the heck is he?). Just from the quote provided, it sounds as if he was (is?) using a definition of "religious" that probably includes football and baseball, and many other things. It seems to be an overly broad interpretation that renders it meaningless.
Posted by: Badger3k | January 27, 2008 2:37 AM
Sorry simply answered his question: "what is murder".
"The Ticking Timebomb" is completely hypothetical, not really applicable to any real life situtation (it is used but Cheney et al. to justify torture, and all manner of brutality).
Still the question of intent remains - if you you can't prove that, bang, there goes your case. The christian god is a god of justice after all (supposedly).
I appologise again. I think I've dived off on a tangent. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 27, 2008 11:14 AM
Dingo Jack Stated:
"Still the question of intent remains - if you you can't prove that, bang, there goes your case. The christian god is a god of justice after all (supposedly).
I appologise again. I think I've dived off on a tangent. -DJ"
A good challenge. Can I explain intent? What was the intent of the laws that seem so severe that it contradicts the later teachings of Jesus? I will work on trying to explain my view.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 27, 2008 3:02 PM
King of Ireland:
Erm. Matthew didn't think the teachings of Jesus contradicted the Law. True Christians, in fact, must follow the Law:
Matthew 5:17-20
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | January 28, 2008 1:25 AM
David Ratnasabapathy stated:
"Erm. Matthew didn't think the teachings of Jesus contradicted the Law. True Christians, in fact, must follow the Law:
Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
The Pharisees were the ones who tried to get Jesus to stone the woman. He would not do it. I think this here means that Jesus came and died to take the death that we all deserve because we are seperated by God. This goes into original sin and this is not the forum to discuss that in that it would go too long. I do have extensive writing that I have done on many subjects essential to the Christian faith. When I get my crap together I will link them for those who would like to see my view.
Posted by: King of Ireland | January 28, 2008 6:28 PM
King of Ireland: you're missing the point.
The claim was that Jesus' teachings contradicted the Jewish law. But the writer of the gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus saying that to be a true follower one must follow the Jewish law, in every little detail.
How then could Jesus' teachings contradict Jewish Law?
In the gospel of Matthew, the only difference in Jesus' teachings is that Jesus demands stricter standards than those demanded by the Law. This is even more at variance with the claim that the OT Laws are stricter than Jesus' teachings.
Posted by: David Ratnasabapathy | January 28, 2008 8:33 PM