The Glamorous Life Association

My brain hurts. How can they allow something like this and do absolutely no screening?! I don't understand. Religion or no religion at the very least the school's priority should be protecting the children. It may be a wonderful program but that doesn't excuse the lack of information.

i'm a christian and i don't like this at all. i don't like that they are not screened, when parent volunteers have to be finger-printed to help out in class. this does NOT work for me. i'm in california and i'm gonna look to see if they are in my area.

Wrong on so many levels - and it starts with whatever district this school is in. The district where we live does not allow flyers of any kind to be distributed or posted at the school without prior approval from the district office and there are NO vans promoting any religion or program near the school.

What I can't believe is the school personnel actually told you that if you were a Nazi you could send a flyer home? That's crazy. You would think (hope) if these flyers needed to be "district approved" that would not get through. I'm surprised his/her "Well, yes," hasn't gotten him removed from his position. This all seems a little wonky to me and has the potential of being disastrous for the school--no background checks, leaving school property... I'm curious if you are going to contact them again regarding the new trailer.

NO BACKGROUND CHECKS AT ALL?!?!?! Unacceptable. They are endangering your children by omission!

Interesting! great article. Hope you follow up and and get to the bottom of this!

Interesting! great article. Hope you follow up and and get to the bottom of this!

I suppose the school's insurance policy is in full agreement with the administration's decision? And I'm right with you on separation of church and state. This whole thing is NOT okay on at least a couple of levels.

We all know this world and especially the kids nowadays need a little more Jesus in their lives, but I have to agree with the fact that the parents should be the ones to involve them in that. You need to know who's offering what to your kids and in what context. I have no problems with the mixing of church and state however, our country was founded on the belief of one God and it'll definitely come back to bite us all that we tried to remove God from everything. This definitely warrants some additional research.

I call Shenanigans on this! If memory serves, your kids aren't even in High School yet, and they are leaving campus to visit a van? What the hell, I couldn't leave high school until I was at least a sophomore in high school, and even then I had to get a lunch pass thingy from parents. It was to protect me from my own stupidity, I mean I was a teenager for heaven's sake. I really don't even get the point of this "ministry" I think there is a better way to reach youth then a flyer hastily handed out at recess.

I call Shenanigans on this! If memory serves, your kids aren't even in High School yet, and they are leaving campus to visit a van? What the hell, I couldn't leave high school until I was at least a sophomore in high school, and even then I had to get a lunch pass thingy from parents. It was to protect me from my own stupidity, I mean I was a teenager for heaven's sake. I really don't even get the point of this "ministry" I think there is a better way to reach youth then a flyer hastily handed out at recess.

It doesn't bother me if the truck is there. Since non-profits have to be OKed by the district I would like to think that the board would deny access to a Nazi trailer. As long as they don't make kiddos go or give everyone handouts. That there is no one from the school supervising & the trailer folks haven't been screened/fingerprinted... another story. Surprising since it is school property they are liable if something happens. Also letting the kiddos leave the campus at lunch... not OK.

Wow, this is very scary and disturbing. I'm really surprised that they let this go on. Please keep us updated with any information or responses you get.

Actually Kara-Noel, the district could not discriminate against a NON profit Nazi group they tell me. They can not deny 'flyer distribution' to ANY non profit group. (aside from pornography, alcohol or other adult activities of course! I had half a mind to form a random non-profit called "Kids for Sarcasm" and see if they would let me distriubute flyers and then take them to a trailer where I would perform stand up and teach them how to blog.

Ok...I have to admit, I'd REALLY like to know one thing from you: Have you heard of Mormon Seminary? When I was in high school, I attended classes 5 days a week, at 6:30 in the am (UGH) at a church near my high school. In Utah, and other PREDOMINANTLY Mormon communities, arrangements are made with the high school so that students are able to leave during a free period (or release time) to attend these classes during the day. The classes aren't in vans...they're in nearby (read: walking distance) churches or homes of members of the congregation. We never, to my knowledge, send home flyers to students...the classes are set up through our congregations. Would that fly with you? You're right - something about the Trailer Church seems odd to me, especially at an elementary school, but...at the same time, I could see how it could do some good, especially if it were serving otherwise "latchkey kids" and keeping them out of trouble. Hrm....

I agree that this could lead to a slippery slope of propaganda from all directions and the fact that they aren't properly screened is just downright frightening. I do want to nitpick one issue though, for the sake of your own credibility. You make a big deal about the kids leaving campus, but then also that the trailer is on school grounds. I don't see how it can be both and one is enough to make your point, I think.

Anything in a "trailer" that is encouraging my kids to join in the fun - "Christian" or not - weirds me out. I would tell my children to steer clear, even though we love Jesus and I love Christian ministry. Something weird about the whole thing puts up the "stranger danger" red flag, especially considering you couldn't really get good info from the Released Time people. Thanks for making us aware.

So, any non profit can use the school for free advertising? I work for a BIC OC nonprofit, so can I please send your kids to school wearing a sandwich board with our logo? If nobody ever gets turned away, I don't see the issue... Also--a background check without a fingerprint is NOT a background check! PS I HEART Jesus. But he didn't need a creepy van to share the Word.

There is something distinctly icky about ministry in a trailer. It just seems fly-by-night, as though they will just pack up like one of those old snake oil salesmen when they get run out of town for spreading lies and taking people's money. And speaking of money, is this organization asking for donations or passing the offering plate while they are proselytizing to the younguns'? Do they have a brick & mortar church somewhere?

Looks like there is a lot of law backing up the right of Released Time to conduct its activities, including a Supreme Court judgement in 1952 which was later upheld by the 10th District Court of Appeals. Since the children have to be enrolled by their parents, it doesn't seem like a problem to me. It's up to the parents to determine whether they want their kids to have one hour a week of religious education near school. Since Released Time has been active in schools across the U.S. since 1914, I would think they must have a pretty good track record of not molesting, selling drugs to, or otherwise harming children. Children are released from school for all kinds of activities with parents permission, aren't they?

One of my personal favorite Supreme Court Justices, William O. Douglas, wrote the majority opinion on the case governing this: "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. When the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it then follows the best of our traditions, for it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public services to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence." -- Justice William O. Douglas, Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

There is a Jewish Released Time program in New York. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Released_Time

Also, the Mormon seminary program operates under the Released Time laws. Sorry I keep talking! I just found this fascinating so I've been spending the morning researching it. All the years I have spent being married to an appellate lawyer have rubbed off on me. I can't resist a Constitutional issue.

OK, now I am confused. In researching this, I found that you said on your blog at the time you resigned from the PTA position that it was a different post that caused the flap. This one: http://marcywrites.com/2009/03/caution-children-acting-like-children-ahead/ But what is really bugging me is that I have to say I don't think you played fair with this issue. First, you didn't make it clear that the children have to have their parents' permission before they are allowed to attend the classes. Second, you equate these classes with drug dealers lurking near schools, and use the word "creepy" to describe the trailer, which is inflammatory and not really fair. Third, you don't seem to have researched this very thoroughly, because the concept of Released Time isn't restricted to Christian activities, but is available to any religious training. Finally, the Nazi thing? It's true that in a free society, sometimes we have to grant freedom even to those with whom we don't agree. It's the same freedom that allows you (or me) to speak freely. I'm hoping you'll give this issue some more thought.

The issue stands, for me, that a parent unloading from a backpack papers to be signed and returned to the school (or not) believes that the school has done some homework regarding the events or programs it offers. If the district has no information about the group, or especially has done no background checks of their own, this should be VERY clear. Something like this: "We wish to stress to parents that, while XYZ Group has a long-standing tradition of working with school-aged kids in California, and while we have no complaints or concerns regarding their program, our district has not conducted any background checks of our own. Parents should contact XYZ Group directly for further information." This group has a long history, it seems, and may be just fine (probably are), but THE DISTRICT POLICY is slipshod and I agree with Marcy that it needs to be addressed PRONTO. The next group that comes along wanting release time access to the children may not be as reliable. And the whole thing about the van/trailer is probably creepy to parents because we spend SO much time warning our kids about entering strange vehicles. Sorry, Pavlov's dog wins this issue -- van/trailer = creepy by default. ; )

After sleeping on this, I guess what really bothers me is that the people working in that trailer are actual human beings, probably moms and dads themselves, and very probably good and decent people. I don't think it's necessary to imply that they are child molesters in order to make the point about whether or not you agree with having the optional Bible education available. It cheapens the argument and frankly, just seems mean.

Marci, find me where is the "separation of church and state" in US constitution? Welcome to Christian nation as it is clearly written in our pledge allegiance to the flag (I hope you are US citizen!). Read our beloved US constitution for 10 + times and you will find there is nowhere in our constitution indicating there is a law separating church and state... and believe me we need more good christians like you becoming "salt and light" by serving our children with positive messages (ie. volunteering your time with Released Time program) I am confident we don't need to ask for your back ground check before entering our school campus, all you need to do is just sign up in the front office . Again, welcome to Christian nation!

Hi Marci, Everyone in America, of course, is entitled to an opinion and free expression of ideas. This is a cherished right. Nonethless, there are limits to what a person may say or write. All of us are quite aware of the old cliche that nobody may scream "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater unless there truly really is a fire. We don't have that kind of freedom because it can cause grave harm, even death, to others if a stampede occurs. In my opinion, your blog is screaming "FIRE", Marci. When a person infringes upon the rights of others to legally practice their religion, it's at best borish. At worst, it may be illegal. Furthermore, a person who willfully misrepresents an organization and its volunteers in writing or photography is crossing all sorts of boundaries. NAZIS? A candy bus? Creepy? Nonsense. I urge your readers to check the facts (read below if you wish -- I'll add more). You ought to be more thoughtful, Marci. You ought to aplogize. CRT is unlikely to sue anyone because of its decency and principles...but you never know.

To All Readers: Christian Released Time is a non-denominational organization that has trained volunteers. Many are mothers whose children attend their local schools. All must meet the highest standards of integrity, human decency, and honesty. All must have a faith in God, be members in an well- established local church, and be trained in working with children (please note that child care providers in churches must meet state standards). Some are even school teachers who are licensed and credentialed in the state of California. There are always two adult volunteers on every bus. Bus drivers must have the proper training and vaild driver's license to operate trucks and buses. These are wonderful and trustworthy people, and parents often get to know them quite well.

As I stated above, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of released time programs in 1952, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated the rights of parents to have their children receive religious education during school hours. Part of the ruling reads: "Schools should avoid entangling their administration with that of any church program when keeping track of student attendance from released-time programs, according to a federal appeals court in Lanner v. Wimmer (10th Cir. 1981). The court required schools to find the “least entangling” means of preventing truancy, which meant school officials should not have to hunt down attendance slips at religious institutions." I'm thinking this is why the school district takes no action to approve teachers in the released time programs via background checks or any other means. If the school had approval or disapproval rights, it surely would violate the separation of church and state doctrines. As for the school allowing the flyers to be distributed, as long as they don't favor one program over another, they can't be seen as endorsing a particular program. The opinion further states: "[P]ublic school accommodation of religious beliefs through a released-time program is a largely passive response to parental assertions of the right to 'direct the upbringing and education of children,'" according to a federal appellate court in Lanner v. Wimmer (10th Cir. 1981), citing Pierce, and Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)." Note that the opinion references "public school accomodation," which would seem to cover distribution of flyers. As long as the school doesn't favor one program over another, they are merely passively accomodating parental rights to direct the upbringing of their own children. Obviously the school district can't force other religious groups to come forward with competing plans; all they can do is accomodate all religious groups equally.

Marcy, it's always good to investigate the truth. The Separation of Church and State David Barton - 01/2001 In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President. The election of Jefferson – America's first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power. Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him: Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity . . . to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. . . . [W]e have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you. . . . And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator. [1] However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion": Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. . . . [T]herefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. [2] In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to "work ill to his neighbor." Jefferson understood their concern; it was also his own. In fact, he made numerous declarations about the constitutional inability of the federal government to regulate, restrict, or interfere with religious expression. For example: [N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3] In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4] [O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5] I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6] Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion. As he explained to Noah Webster: It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors . . . and which experience has nevertheless proved they [the government] will be constantly encroaching on if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious [effective] against wrong and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion. [7] Thomas Jefferson had no intention of allowing the government to limit, restrict, regulate, or interfere with public religious practices. He believed, along with the other Founders, that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal establishment of a national denomination – a fact he made clear in a letter to fellow-signer of the Declaration of Independence Benjamin Rush: [T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly. [8] Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the "establishment of a particular form of Christianity" by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination. Since this was Jefferson's view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained: Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [9] Jefferson's reference to "natural rights" invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase "natural rights" communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little. By definition, "natural rights" included "that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain." [10] That is, "natural rights" incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their "natural rights" they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference. So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America's inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried: And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11] Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the "fence" of the Webster letter and the "wall" of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions. Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947 Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded: Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added) [12] That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state": [T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13] With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor." That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. Such acts, even if perpetrated in the name of religion, would be stopped by the government since, as the Court had explained, they were "subversive of good order" and were "overt acts against peace." However, the government was never to interfere with traditional religious practices outlined in "the Books of the Law and the Gospel" – whether public prayer, the use of the Scriptures, public acknowledgements of God, etc. Therefore, if Jefferson's letter is to be used today, let its context be clearly given – as in previous years. Furthermore, earlier Courts had always viewed Jefferson's Danbury letter for just what it was: a personal, private letter to a specific group. There is probably no other instance in America's history where words spoken by a single individual in a private letter – words clearly divorced from their context – have become the sole authorization for a national policy. Finally, Jefferson's Danbury letter should never be invoked as a stand-alone document. A proper analysis of Jefferson's views must include his numerous other statements on the First Amendment. For example, in addition to his other statements previously noted, Jefferson also declared that the "power to prescribe any religious exercise. . . . must rest with the States" (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the federal courts ignore this succinct declaration and choose rather to misuse his separation phrase to strike down scores of State laws which encourage or facilitate public religious expressions. Such rulings against State laws are a direct violation of the words and intent of the very one from whom the courts claim to derive their policy. One further note should be made about the now infamous "separation" dogma. The Congressional Records from June 7 to September 25, 1789, record the months of discussions and debates of the ninety Founding Fathers who framed the First Amendment. Significantly, not only was Thomas Jefferson not one of those ninety who framed the First Amendment, but also, during those debates not one of those ninety Framers ever mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state." It seems logical that if this had been the intent for the First Amendment – as is so frequently asserted-then at least one of those ninety who framed the Amendment would have mentioned that phrase; none did. In summary, the "separation" phrase so frequently invoked today was rarely mentioned by any of the Founders; and even Jefferson's explanation of his phrase is diametrically opposed to the manner in which courts apply it today. "Separation of church and state" currently means almost exactly the opposite of what it originally meant. Endnotes 1. Letter of October 7, 1801, from Danbury (CT) Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson, from the Thomas Jefferson Papers Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. (Return) 2. Id. (Return) 3. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, John P. Foley, editor (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900), p. 977; see also Documents of American History, Henry S. Cummager, editor (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1948), p. 179. (Return) 4. Annals of the Congress of the United States (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1852, Eighth Congress, Second Session, p. 78, March 4, 1805; see also James D. Richardson, A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897 (Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return) 5. Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. I, p. 379, March 4, 1805. (Return) 6. Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, pp. 103-104, to the Rev. Samuel Millar on January 23, 1808. (Return) 7. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. VIII, p. 112-113, to Noah Webster on December 4, 1790. (Return) 8. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. III, p. 441, to Benjamin Rush on September 23, 1800. (Return) 9. Jefferson, Writings, Vol. XVI, pp. 281-282, to the Danbury Baptist Association on January 1, 1802. (Return) 10. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker (Oxford: University Press, 1845), Vol. I, p. 207. (Return) 11. Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Philadelphia: Matthew Carey, 1794), Query XVIII, p. 237. (Return) 12. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 164 (1878). (Return) 13. Reynolds at 163. (Return) This site belongs to WallBuilders, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Corporation | PO Box 397 | Aledo, Texas | 76008 | Contact Us Site designed and powered by Blepo. I hope this helps. Jesus loves you Marcy and thank you for being a good Christian in this awesome Christian nation.

Marcy and friends, just open up the exploration of inquiring minds you may visit some very informative sites;.................... www.wallbuilders.com or www.harvest.org................. I love these sites...please enjoy! God Bless America.

Happy Valentines day everyone! This certainly is a difficult time for many of us due to a bad economy situation since the Great Depression days. My prayers are with your family and friends. Having Jesus Christ in my heart has changed my life several years ago. Would any of our bloggers want to find/try everlasting HOPE and PEACE? * ********************************** [How to Receive Christ ] from www.ficm.org/receivec.htm ************************************* (Your Invitation to Life) Jesus said, "...I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" (John 10:10, NIV). Have you discovered the joy and peace of personally accepting Jesus' invitation to life? Perhaps you have believed in the existence of God and His Son and have tried to live a good life, but have never consciously invited Him to be your Savior and Lord. No matter who you are or what you have done, at this very moment, you too can make the decision of a lifetime. Right now Jesus is knocking at the door of your heart. He offers you the same wonderful life which millions through the centuries have received with life-changing results. He has already paid the penalty for your sin. He is asking you, in the quiet of your heart, to put your trust in Him. Here are four spiritual points that will help you discover how to know God personally and experience the full life He promises. * 1. God loves you and wants to have a personal relationship with you. God's Love: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16, NASV). "Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). God wants you to know Him. Why is it that most people do not have a personal relationship with God? Because: * 2. Our sin cuts us off from God so we cannot have a personal relationship with Him and experience His love. We have all sinned. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23, NASV). We were all created to have a personal relationship with God, because we all choose to go our own independent way, our relationship with God was broken. The fact that we are selfish and self-centered is obvious because we either rebel against God or don't really care about Him. This is evidence of what the Bible calls "sin." We are cut off from God. "The wages of sin is death..." [spiritual separation from God] (Rom. 6:23). God is holy (pure and sinless) and we are sinful. A great gap cuts us off from God because He cannot tolerate sin. People often try to find a full and meaningful life through their own efforts. They try to live a good life or be religious. But the Bible clearly teaches that there is only one way to bridge this gap. * 3. Jesus Christ is God's only cure for our sin. Through Him you can know God personally and experience His love. Jesus died in our place. "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8, NASV). Jesus rose from the dead. "...Christ died for our sins . . . He was buried . . . He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . . He appeared to Cephas [Peter], then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred . . ." (1 Cor. 15:3-6, NASV). Jesus is the only way to God. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me" (John 14:6, NASV). God has done the work to bridge the gap which cuts us off from Him. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross in our place to pay the penalty for our sin. But it is not enough just to know these truths. We must take the next step . . . and "cross the bridge." * 4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know God personally and experience His love. We must receive Christ. "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name" (John 1:12, NASV). We receive Christ by personal invitation. Thus, receiving Christ involves turning to God from self (repentance) and trusting Christ to come into our lives to forgive our sins so that we can begin our personal relationship with Him. Just to know in your mind that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He died on the cross for our sins is not enough. We receive Jesus Christ by faith, as an act of the will. Would you like to accept Jesus' invitation to life? You can receive Jesus Christ right now by faith through prayer. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. Millions of people all around the world have already found new life in Christ. Here is a suggested prayer which can help you express your trust in Jesus, too: Dear Lord Jesus, I want to know You personally. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins and for rising from the dead. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. I trust You now to forgive my sins and give me eternal life. Please make me the kind of person You want me to be.

It's very important to recognize that these programs are less about "religious education" than back-door evangelism. Ironically, there's a history of these groups sending RTE children back to school with *candy* - as well as trinkets and invitations for their "unchurched" classmates. As always, it's all about getting a foot in the door of the public schools and gaining access to "unchurched" children behind the backs of their parents. But, don't take my word for it: Here's the director of the Oregon RTE program (PREP4Kids) calling the public schools "the mission field at our doorstep." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GZ2jstLHCo

Here's a link to one article which reveals how disruptive these programs are to the learning of *ALL* students -- not just RTE kids (missing Science class in order to go hear about our 6,000 year old Earth... but, I digress). http://bit.ly/ZsHug OR http://www.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/index.ssf/2009/09/bible_study_proposal_raises_qu.html

Hello! bfcebbb interesting bfcebbb site!

Hello! kdccgdg interesting kdccgdg site!

Hello! fdegfcd interesting fdegfcd site!