Christian Students Suspended for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts with Bible Verses

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 17, 2010

[topher]

Friday September 17, 2010

---

Christian Students Suspended for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts with Bible Verses

ROSWELL, New Mexico, September 17, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A New Mexico School principal has penalized three Christian students with suspensions for giving fresh Krispy Kreme Doughnuts with Bible verses to each of their teachers, according to the public advocacy group Liberty Counsel.

This school is already named in a pending lawsuit filed by Liberty Counsel on behalf of families and students who were bullied, and one suspended, for exercising their freedom of religion by distributing abstinence wristbands and plastic models of babies at 12 weeks gestation to bring attention to the life of unborn children in the womb.

According to Liberty Counsel, about 25 Christian students in the group, Relentless in Roswell, decided to express appreciation for their teachers by giving them doughnuts. Since the closest Krispy Kreme shop was in Texas, some of them drove almost six hours round trip, stayed overnight, got up at 3:00 a.m. filled their car’s back seat with fresh doughnuts, and got back to school on time to deliver the doughnuts.

But when the doughnuts were passed out, they included a scripture verse as well. For that, one student was immediately sent home, and two others were forced to spend a Saturday morning sitting alone in the classroom for four hours as a punishment.

"Our motives were not rebellious,” Pastor Troy Smothermon said of the Christian youth group, with which his church is affiliated. “If they were, we would have just bought a box of doughnuts down the street. The whole purpose was to encourage those in the school.”

He added, “We are challenging the constitutionality, but our motive here was to love. Faith without works is dead. We want them to know that we love them and that Christ loves them."

The Christian group has also handed out sandwiches, hot chocolate, and candy canes in the past to the student body and faculty. Some also distributed rocks with affirming words like "U are wonderful' painted on one side and "Psalm 139" on the other, as part of their ministry.

However, Liberty Counsel says that things came to a head when Relentless in Roswell decided to hand out plastic models of unborn babies. The incident, they said, ended up saving the life of a student who said she had planned to commit suicide because of the guilt she felt over her abortion. Liberty Counsel says that when she received a model baby with the scripture "you are fearfully and wonderfully made" she cried and prayed with the students.

However students were afterwards pulled out of class and instructed by Principal Ruben Bolaños to cease their "Christian" acts because they had made their point. He is alleged to have said, "I don’t like Christians. All they do is smile at you and then stab you in the back."

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, commented that given conditions in schools today, to suspend the Christian students is an absurdity.

"Some teachers are worried about their students giving them bullets, and this school suspends students over a Bible verse! These students are living their Christian beliefs by showing kindness,” said Staver. “It is outrageous that the Roswell school officials are mean to these students solely because they are hostile to their Christian faith."

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10091712.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[keats5]

You SHOULD find it disturbing. They are systematically teaching your young that the rights belong to the state, not to the citizen.

[OneWingedShark]

>You SHOULD find it disturbing. They are systematically teaching your young that the rights belong to the state, not to the citizen.

Agreed; see the links in post 120.

[Raycpa]

Wow, where did you get God can be wrong?

[rockinqsranch]

We must remember a goodly quantity of that money being raised for Christine O’ Donnell is from outside of Delaware. It’s the Delaware voters that will elect her, NOT those sending the money we see pouring in from all over. Let’s pray that the good people of Delaware see the light, and vote for Christine O’ Donnell as so many throughout the other 49 States sending those dollars are hoping.

Praying those dollars will be well spent to convince the good people of Delaware to vote C.O.D.

[rockinqsranch]

Thank you for your post.

[OneWingedShark]

>your very words: "We are called to be obedient to authority, even when they are wrong."

[pallis]

Thanks for the time you took on this. Of course the school doesn't have a case as far as In loco parentis, goes if it chooses to challenge the civil rights of the students, but if the principal stays to the policy on bringing snacks to school, the students are in for a sticky fight. They will need to review past actions taken against students who have smuggled snacks onto school grounds, especially students who have given those snacks to teachers. My advise to the students would be to bypass the principal's game, and present the same verse to teachers without the complimentary snack. Draw the school into the real fight. ...There is a history of conflicts between these students and the administration, and a history of animosity between some in the administration and the minister that influences the students. That might be worth looking into.

[wintertime]

Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."

Can you see the conflict here between the above statement from the New Mexico Constitution and government schooling? It is a conflict that can not be resolved. The only possible solution is to begin the process of privatizing K-12 education ( and even all university and college level education.)

Re: Freedom of religion

The New Mexico Constitution states:

No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship

Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship.

**ALL** government schools in this nation are godlessly secular. Every minute of the school day children are taught to think godlessly. Every subject and all school policies are filtered through a godless worldview. This is NOT religiously neutral.

Thinking godlessly is in direct conflict with many religions. It is in mine. Yet...The government is establishing a godless worldview that utterly undermines the religious values being taught in the home. The government does this under compulsion. If the parent objects, and can not afford or find a private alternative, well, TOO BAD! Police stand ready to use force to accomplish the government's indoctrination of children in its government anointed and godless religious worldview . The same is true for the taxpayer who is under police threat to fund this abominable godless religious worldview.

There are only two possible positions that government schools can take. It can support and teach religion but then which of the hundreds of sects should it support? Or...It can establish a godless religious worldview and that undermines **all** God-centered religious belief!

Also...Since the government school must restrict speech, press, and association in its classroom and elsewhere, it is impossible for the child, therefore, to freely express and practice his religion. How is it possible to have free practice of religion when the child is essentially muzzled?

There is no solution to the conundrum except privatizing all K-12 education.

Re: Free speech and press

ALL schools ( government and private) MUST restrict speech and press if they are to maintain order and safety and have an effective educational program. So...Right there, government schools are in conflict with both our state and federal constitutions. In maintaining an effective government classroom the government MUST insist that child **shut up** for most of the day.

If a child is forbidden to freely distribute religious tracts ( Bible, Book of Mormon, Scientology, Wiccan material, the Koran, etc.) this is in conflict with the child's ( and indirectly the parents') constitutional right to free speech and press. But...If he is permitted to distribute these things those children who are in the school through government compulsion are subjected unwillingly to another person's religious belief.

Again...This conflict between free speech and press can not be resolved in a government school. The only solution is privatization.

Re: Liberty and freedom of association

Then there is the problem of government compulsion to attend their schools and that is definitely in conflict with the child's and, indirectly, with the parents' liberty and freedom of association. ALL children whose parents can not afford the extra cost of private schooling or homeschooling MUST attend the government assigned government school! Once they have lost that liberty, it is the government who decides with whom the child may or may not associate.

I personally know parents who are horrified that their children are in school sitting next to other children who have nose rings, tattoos, are drug abusers and delinquents, and who wear immodest clothing. Too bad! It is the government who determines with whom that child will associate. The government bureaucrats don't care a whit that the child's family religious, cultural, and political traditions are being undermined. ( The extra money that parents must pay out for private or home schooling, I give the name of "ransom" or "jizya". )

And...Since the government is running a price-fixed monopoly cartel of schools in many counties, ( such as mine) there are NO private schools. The business climate created by the government with its price-fixed monopoly cartel makes it impossible for private schools to compete. If a cartel of CEOs were to try price-fixing a market they would soon be in prison, but, down on the educational Animal Farm, government schools sleep in the farmer's house. Private schools get the barn. ( Oink!)

Yes, the government still allows parents to pay ransom( or jizya) in the form of extra schooling expenses ( in addition to supporting the godless government schools) but the government makes private alternatives impossible by creating a business climate that makes it impossible for private schools to compete. It also makes property taxes so high that both parents must work and therefore homeschooling is impossible for many families. The liberty to freely choose the people with whom to associate and choose a private school that supports the religious values taught at home does not exist in many counties ( such as mine). What a cruel joke!

It is impossible for the government school to resolve the above conflicts. The only possible solution is to move to a completely private system of schooling.

[Raycpa]

Do you understand the difference between “called” and “commanded”?

[highlander_UW]

Again, I just find it quite disturbing that the definitions are ignored and that logic is not applied.

Ok, Mr snippy, here's a reprint of my post. Please explain where my "definitions and logic" are not applied...

How dare they give teachers donuts?!! Can't they see how offensive donuts are?!

[OneWingedShark]

Ah, so now we're merely called to submit to authority and not commanded to submit.
Why don't you put forth your definitions that way we won't have this miss-communication.

{I get the feeling that you're the sort who likes to keep things undefined so that he might 'win' an argument by changing definitions midstream.}

[OneWingedShark]

Ok, Mr snippy, here's a reprint of my post. Please explain where my "definitions and logic" are not applied...

...did you read the portions of the Constitution I cited? It's obvious that the administration, and the state as well, is acting in an unlawful manner; if that is not reason enough to be 'snippy,' then might I ask what is? You'll also note that the portion of your post I quoted was the portion of the article/administrator that you quoted and so it is more a response to him.

But since we're on the topic; perhaps you would care to explain why so many people think that you or I or other citizens need to obtain government permission to exercise what the [state] Constitution recognizes as an INHERENT & INALIENABLE *RIGHT*? (Pleas read the definitions in post 108 again; but this time consider what these words mean; especially when they're applied to yourself.) This administrator whining that "it was done secretly" and without [governmental/his] permission is merely one such instance. Another would be our all municipal/county regulations or requirements concerning weapons AS WELL AS many State Statutes:

New Mexico State Constitution
Art II, Sec 6

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Contrary State Statutes

30-7-2.1. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises.
 
A. Unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises consists of carrying a deadly weapon on school premises except by:
   (1)  a peace officer;
   (2)  school security personnel;
   (3)  a student, instructor or other school-authorized personnel engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or state-authorized hunter safety training instruction;
   (4)  a person conducting or participating in a school-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a deadly weapon; or
   (5)  a person older than nineteen years of age on school premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
 
B. As used in this section, "school premises" means:
   (1)  the buildings and grounds, including playgrounds, playing fields and parking areas and any school bus of any public elementary, secondary, junior high or high school in or on which school or school-related activities are being operated under the supervision of a local school board; or
   (2) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not public school property, in or on which public school-related and sanctioned activities are being performed.
 
C. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a deadly weapon on school premises is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.

A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:

1. a peace officer;
2. university security personnel;
3. a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
4. a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
5. a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.

B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
C. As used in this section:

1. "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
2. "university premises" means:
      (a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
      (b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.

D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

See the whole list of New Mexico Weapons Laws.

Now, according to the last sentence in Art 2, Sec 6 no municipality or county may regulate incidents of the right to bear arms; this means that ALL city laws against "brandishing" or "discharging" a weapon are Null and Void; not only this but the pig-ol` signs on Municipal and County Courthouses are of none effect (according to the State Constitution). The statute regarding the university is particularly sinister; not only does it abridge the right of all faculty, staff, students, and visitors to bear weapons, but it also abridges the right of those who live in on-campus housing from keeping weapons -- But then they justify it by making irrelevant claims:

1. The University is private property, -- [i.e. Yes it's publicly funded, and has mandates imposed upon it by the government, but don't all private entities?] and
2. "We don't allow guns in courthouses or airports" -- [i.e. because we do it elsewhere we can do it here.

The first is utterly irrelevant to the law's existence: Art 2, Sec6 says "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense[...]" but furthermore, Art 2, Sec 4 explicitly says that everyone has the right to protect themselves.
The second will quickly get you into a circular argument where "we ban weapons from courthouses" supports banning them from schoolgrounds & "we ban them from schools" supports banning them from courthouses... utterly ignoring that the words 'all' and 'no'/'not' and 'shall' are words with actual, fixed meanings. Utterly ignoring that the Constitution, the very authority that set up the branches of the government to make laws, enforce laws, and adjudicate is what is prohibiting those same authorities from acting in such a manner {in other words, the contempt of the various branches of government to the Constitution's authority [which they show by their actions] is nothing less than a repudiation of that authority itself}.

[highlander_UW]

...did you read the portions of the Constitution I cited?

That doesn't apply to my post, which you obviously didn't read. Don't bother to reply, you obviously have some sort of cognitive difficulty and I don't want to waste my time with you.

[Sun]

It’s too bad we don’t have enough judges who will uphold Constitutions when schools, etc., do not.

[Raycpa]

Called was in my original comment.

[OneWingedShark]

>Called was in my original comment.

Indeed it was, to which I gave the [counter-]examples of brave men, documented in the bible, going against authority... even when one of the incidents could have been wholly avoided by Daniel “showing deference” to the king and simply not praying.
As well as the answer Jesus gave when they tried to trap him between the Law of Moses, and the law of Rome.

To these examples you replied “Do you characterize Daniel as being disobedient to the King or obedient to God? There is a key difference.”
But that is not what you had said earlier, you had said that the Children of God are called [presumably by God] to be obedient to authority, and I emphasize this, *’even when they are wrong’.*

Now, either they are called to be obedient “even when they [authorities] are wrong” or they are not; by asserting that Daniel was obedient to God whilst asserting also that obedience to authorities “even when they are wrong.” is being obedient to God you have contradicted yourself.

When I asked you to define the differences between “called” and “commanded” you backpedal to saying that your original statement said “called” while itwas you who asked: “Do you understand the difference between “called” and “commanded””

So, let me ask two things:
1 — Do word shave actual, definite meanings?
2 — what the hell are you trying to say?

[OneWingedShark]

>It’s too bad we don’t have enough judges who will uphold Constitutions when schools, etc., do not.

You know, I’m half tempted to run for a judgeship... but I’m not sure how people would react to my campaigning on a platform of hate:
“I HATE INJUSTICE!”

[Raycpa]

If we can obey authority without being disobedient to God then we obey. If an authority requires a punishment (detention) then because its not being disobedient to God we should serve detention cheerfully. If the school says no proselyting by handing out donuts then we should obey. If the school says we must denounce God, then we must resist.

So, we are called to obey the authorities placed over us even though those authorities are in error.

Further, the witness this Church is making is one of creating conflict where it should not exist. If the principal is reachable to hear the message of Christ’s redemption then its not going to come from these students. Further, the students are being taught to disrespect of authority. This is not biblical and it is dangerous.

Daniel was a model for obedience to the King. There was only one thing he disobeyed and he attempted to avoid this disobedience by other means. These students and this Church are not attempting to be disobedient like Daniel did, they are not trying to honor God by being obedient like Daniel did.

Further, God promises that when we stay under authority we will be protected.

[headsonpikes]

“We are called to be obedient to authority, even when they are wrong.”

Fatuous b*llsh*t!

Be a man.

[headsonpikes]

“Further, God promises that when we stay under authority we will be protected.”

You just insist on being an apologist for tyrants, don’t you.

Judas goat, I say.