Complaint About NASA Banning Someone's First Name
NASA bans the word ‘Jesus’, Fox
“The name of Jesus is not welcome in the Johnson Space Center newsletter, according to a complaint filed on behalf of a group of Christians who work for NASA. The JSC Praise & Worship Club was directed by NASA attorneys to refrain from using the name ‘Jesus’ in club announcements that appeared in a Space Center newsletter. “It was shocking to all of us and very frustrating,” NASA engineer Sophia Smith told me. “NASA has a long history of respecting religious speech. Why wouldn’t they allow us to put the name Jesus in the announcement about our club?” Liberty Institute, one of the nation’s largest religious liberty law firms, threatened to file a federal lawsuit unless NASA apologizes and stops censoring the name ‘Jesus’.”
Keith’s note: Right. The name “Jesus” is being censored at NASA. Go to people.nasa.gov and type “Jesus” in the first name search box. Look at all the results. [Larger image] If this loony claim is real then any time any of these employees named “Jesus” is quoted in the newsletter or wants to place a want ad, etc. they will have to do so under a false name. And when they write technical papers, they will have to use a false name too. I wonder what happens when it comes to the name on their pay checks. Do the people who write these opinion pieces ever bother to think before they hit ‘send’?
Keith’s note: NASA PAO sent me the following statement: “NASA does not prohibit the use of any specific religious names in employee newsletters or other internal communications. The agency allows a host of employee-led civic, professional, religious and other organizations to meet on NASA property on employees’ own time. Consistent with federal law, NASA attempts to balance employees’ rights to freely exercise religious beliefs with its obligation to ensure there is no government endorsement of religion. We believe in and encourage open and diverse dialogue among our employees and across the agency.”
Dare I suggest that informing people is not that particular media outlet’s first priority?
Oh, details details.
Keith, I think you misinterpret the opinion piece. Nobody has banned the generic name “Jesus” from e-mail lists, technical papers, or anywhere else an employee name in concerned. The opinion piece reflects that. This is about using the name “Jesus” specifically in the context of announcing Christian-based club activities in a newsletter (e.g. “Come worship Jesus”).
The opinion writer disagrees with this decision, but makes no mention of any other ban (e.g. authors of technical papers). Unless I misunderstand your note, what is the point you were trying to make?
They talk about not being able to use the name “Jesus”. No one with the last name “Christ” is mentioned.
The opinion writer doesn’t have to mention Christ because you can clearly deduce that from the context of the issue. The complaint was filed on behalf of a Christian group that wanted to promote a praise and worship club. Nobody is talking about a blanket ban on the name Jesus, including technical papers and the swap shop.
You’re right, the request to remove the name “Jesus” is discriminatory and unreasonable. I hope an apology is issued and the matter resolved quickly.
This is another example of Government overreach and heavy handed discrimination of Christians. Before you ask for examples of “other” times this has happened I urge to google it yourself.
No, its an example of a public, taxpayer funded organization staying out of promoting religion. I would assume they also would do the same to a Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish organization.
Let’s wait to see what the details are, before we make this into a Fox News type “The War on Christmas” moment
I am curious, Neil… the legal problem was the title of the club’s meeting: “Jesus is our life.”. Nasa determined this was a violation of the Establishment Clause in the Constitution, with NASA promoting a sectarian position.
Would you have problem with a Muslim group proclaiming in a Nasa newsletter: “Mohamed is God’s True Prophet” or a Jewish group announcing its meeting to discuss: “The ‘Divinity’ of Jesus is Blasphemy against God”?
No its not, its discrimination. Why not ban the Roman god name apollo then? They are hypocrites and they hate the GOD of the bible. That is why they are going to burn in hell.
If people were currently worshiping Apollo or Ares, then it would make sense to not name prograns after them. But this isn’t the year 150 ce.
One could certainly make the case that Shiva, for example, is out, due to its currency
Currency have no relevancy today. The fact they named it after Roman god shows they are hypocrites.
It IS relevant. Nobody has worshipped the Greek or Roman Pantheon in 1500 years. Naming a rocket Saturn or Titan does not support or impede the practice of that ancient pagan religion. No harm, no foul. No one thinks of the Roman Gods as anything but myth. Now, while I think that what most people currently believe is also superstitious supernatural voodoo myth, billions disagree and thus the Establishment Clause kicks in.
Apollo was the name of a large NASA program. Can’t do that, sorry.
Yes, named after a ROMAN god.
NASA can determine what ever it wishes too but the same framers of the Constitution including those that wrote the Establishment Clause in the Constitution practiced what these employees are being denied on a regular basis. Clearly the framers had not just established a double standard or were hypocrites. In the court of common sense this implies that the Establishment Clause is being misinterpreted by an over reaching Government..
I don’t follow your logic
Its self evident
I think I follow the logic and partially agree with it. Separation of.Church and State does not require a total ban on religious references in all government publications. Take a look at US currency. You will find the words “In God we trust.” The principal is a ban on government support for one, specific religious view or faith. So, in a newsletter advertising social events by employees, the policy can be either no references to any religion _or_ allowing any. That is allowing notices for any sort of.religious event, regardless of the religion (or lack thereof, if an atheist group wanted to advertise an event.) The governing principal is all or none, not just none.
The Supreme Court (disengenuously) ruled that phrases like “In God We Trust” is ok because it is an entirely meaningless motto: “… Protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.” That comforts neither side. Yes, in the past the massive Christian majority was able to compell religious support from governmental institutions, but the ever-growing numbers and strength of other groups has succeeded in better enforcement of the Establishment Clause.
The working principle has been moving towards the safety of the “none”, you mention above.
In this particular case, it wasn’t the listing of group events, it was a headline that promoted a specific sectarian doctrine. If the event notification was simply a announcement that they were meeting to discuss the importance of their beliefs in their lives, it would have been ok. It was that they were “advertising” their God.
It is worth remembering that many and perhaps most of the framers did not want a Christian nation. Specifically, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin all wrote that we are not a Christian nation and that we should reject any such assertions.
Many were Theists (but certainly not all, with “standard” Christianity quite common), who thought there was a Prime Mover that created the Universe and set its clockwork in motion, but not a “personal” God, interacting in history.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a “bible” that cleansed all magic from Jesus (which is the Greek for the English – Joshua):
Whether or not they were Christians, they did not want to associate this nation with any religion.
I certainly agree with that. The only places that the Constitution mention any religion whatsoever is in the main body, where it states that NO religious test may be applied to be elected or to work for the government, and the 1st Amendment, where it says the government should stay away from promoting or prohibiting religion.
Now many of the Founders felt that this should be a “religious” nation (which it is), but NOT “officially”, but in individual personal and private choice and conscience. That’s fine with me. Believe whatever you want. Just keep it out of my face.
Honestly Yale as a Christian myself I would be fine with a Muslim group or a Jewish group or an atheist group doing the same thing.
People get offended and try to shut people down too often. I see things everyday that are offensive to my religious and political beliefs but I don’t try to shut people up because I disagree with them. People should be tolerant of each other’s beliefs, which means respectfully disagreeing and not trying to shut each other up.
NASA is not endorsing a religion by letting employees express their personal beliefs.
It is ONLY in the State arena that I have objection. Otherwise, go for it.
As a member of a small minority ethnic group in a VASTLY larger pool, it is hard to convey the scary chill that the term “tolerate” generates coming from a member of the massive majority. That is why the fights in the legislature and courts to clear away any vestige of sectarianism is mostly by members of minority faiths (or non-faiths), ethnic groups, or races.
I agree that mutual respect and respectful disagreement is a better way to put it than the word “tolerance.” I do believe that it is important to voice disagreements and that no one should be shut up in the name of “tolerance.”
Agree with your points Joe. Funny how some that think they understand the Constitution actually have limited understanding of it, its intent and the context it was written in. They are blinded to facts and truth because they want their distorted view to prevail so much. What many don’t appreciate is that what the folks at JSC did is no different then what the founders did before and after the Ratification of the US Constitution. Even to this day the Congress opens with a Prayer usually by its Chaplin.
You are wrong. Franklin proposed that prayer before and after the sessions on the Constitution. It was VOTED DOWN.
Yikes you are less informed then I thought. Easy to verify, use search engine Google on the internet and using your fingers type on a keyboard (attached to a computer) the following letter groupings “Prayer in Congress” you should get at least one hit. Let us know what you find
I was referring to your statement: “what the founders did before and after the Ratification of the US Constitution.” I assume you meant a prayer at the Constitutional convention.
They did not.
I meant prayer since the Constitutional Congress to this date. The reason there is no conflict is because there isn’t any since they are not establishing a religion or imposing one. Just like the folks at JSC are not imposing or requiring anyone to attend their meetings, they are simply announcing that they are having one.
As to the prayer in Congress, in 1983, the Supreme Court, in Marsh v. Chambers, held that because a chaplain was authorized 3 days before the First Amendment (containing the Establishment Clause) was ratified, then it is exempt. The Court called it a case of “Unique History”. Very, very convoluted logic. The dissenting Justices pointed out that “it simply confirms that the Court is carving out an exception to the Establishment Clause”
This convoluted type of logic also applied to the use of phrases such as “In God We Trust” where the court held they are meaningless:
“… Protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.” lol
And you are missing the point about JSC. The ARE NOT banning anyone’s meetings. It was what they judged as sketchy TEXT in the newsletter.
They are not referring to some member’s name on a role of participants or membership, or to an author’s name. It is quite obvious they are very specifically referring to ‘Jesus Christ’ and to support of a specific religion. For the same reason they do not allow use of the name “Christian Praise and Worship Club” (despite the fact this is probably intended) they are also not permitting reference to ‘Christ’ in the group’s programs. I agree with the government legal authorities.
No, they simply refer to use of the name “Jesus”. No one with the last name “Christ” is mentioned.
Interestingly, articles in “The Christian Science Monitor” are referenced twice in the May 28, 2015 “JSC Today” email:
http://www.freelists.org/po…
For those interested, the full text of the May 28, 2015 “JSC Today” email is here:
http://www.freelists.org/po…
The Liberty Institute article about this incident is here:
https://www.libertyinstitut…
What’s more concerning is not the actions of the overreaching government in this case but the lack of understanding of the foundations of our freedoms.
or the attempt of beleaguered xtians to wrap themselves disingenuously in the flag.
Go to church all you want, people, but leave the rest of us out of it. Pretty simple.
I can’t argue with those that don’t (want to) know what they don’t know
Easy to call others ignorant
Well, I don’t understand why Christians can’t simply use the tax free churches for meetings if they want. Knock yourselves out at church, but leave the schools and workplaces alone. That’s what I mean by simple.
If you don’t exercise your rights you can lose them through atrophy. That’s what the Constitution Protects. Christians have the right to meet and worship. They are not disrupting anything at JSC to justify JSC banning what they say in their meetings, and the name of Jesus.
They aren’t banning what they say at their meetings! It was simply the TEXT in their newsletter announcement.
I can’t argue with those that don’t know that they don’t (want to) know.
I don’t see how this isn’t “leaving you out of it.” No one was forced to go to this meeting. No one was barraged with constant emails about this meeting. The announcement was placed in a newsletter that had a specific area for club announcements.
I may not be a member of the tennis club but I would not be offended when they announce their meeting place. If there was a atheist club meeting I wouldn’t be offended either.
Some religious and non-religious people need to learn the true meaning of tolerance. It is respectfully disagreeing, not trying to shut the other person up.
The requirement for “tolerance” must not come up in the PUBLIC arena. I may privately tolerate others private actions, but things change in the tax-paid public environment.At my kid’s school, or a government facility I do not wish to “tolerate” posters advertising Devil Worship, Atheism, Christianity, Voodoo, whatever (except specifically as part of an educational curriculum in comparative religions, literature, history, mythology, or whatever).
I have no desire to shut anyone up – except in the State arena, which must remain sterile.
Obviously the State must not endorse a particular religion (e.g. a state official declaring in his official capacity that one religion is better than others).
That isn’t what is happening here. These people are employees of a state agency exercising their right to assemble on their free time. There is no endorsement here.
Also the advertisement in the newsletter wasn’t obscene in any way and did not make fun of any other religion.
To use your school example if the kids wanted a club that discussed atheism or Christianity I don’t see why they should be prevented from advertising for it on a bulletin board.
I am in a tax paid public environment right now (university) and there are many similar ads for the Muslim student group, the LGBT student group, Christian student groups, and much more.
Allowing people to advertise the fact that they meet to discuss certain things or worship Jesus, Allah, or nobody isn’t an endorsement of religion. It is allowing the free exercise of religion and free speech.
I very specifically separate a public place of higher learning (altho not lower school grades) from the “sterility” rule. Universities are by design a place for active engagement in diverse and controversial philosophies and opinions. It is what the place is for. That is part of its mission. It is an open marketplace for the open expression of free thought. Just as a soapbox in a public park as long as tax-payer money is not involved and all have equal access and no one is using loudspeakers or other methods to force people to participate.
However…, a courthouse, or a public aid office, or a national laboratory, are not places for sectarian promotion. The issue here (which may have been an overreaction) was not listing the meeting. It was the title that the local Nasa office feared would open them to charge of sectarianism. Again, it was not the meeting itself.
In the play “Inherit The Wind”, about the 1920’s Scopes anti-evolution Monkey Trial (actually it was about McCarthyism, but I digress), at the end of a day’s session, the Judge read a list of local events, including a prayer meeting. Clarence Darrow jumped up and strenuously objected to advertising a sectarian viewpoint in that public forum.
I knew it, every fundamentalist here is yelling “I want my freedom of religion, you are oppressing me.” What about my freedom from your religion and your endless preaching? What about that?
(aimed at all those that say government is waging war on christianity)
I fail to see how an announcement in a newsletter about a voluntary religious club in any way imposes on your right not to worship God.
Did they pay to have this announcement published? No = promoting of religion.
Would an atheist group or a Muslim group be forced to pay to have their announcements published? No = no promotion of religion
atheist no, it is by definition a non religion, muslim baptist, lutheran, calvinist , they all should pay
So you are saying that the government should endorse a religious viewpoint (there is no God)? Bit of a double standard there.
(I know you will say, “Well atheism isn’t a religion.” Maybe not per se, but it certainly includes viewpoints on religion (e.g. there is no God)).
Also the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from endorsing a certain religion while also protecting the free exercise of religious belief among citizens.
“What about my freedom from your religion and your endless preaching?”
People are constitutionally guaranteed the right to speak/preach about what they want.
You don’t have to listen to it, but the government is not allowed to prohibit it, or endorse one religion over another.
It can be restricted in a government forum under the Establishment Clause.
An elementary public school teacher cannot preach to her class about the coming Golden Age of Satan’s Kingdom on Earth and how all should join the Demonic Church of Hell.
Right, in that case she is acting as the agent of the government which cannot take preference. That is not so in the case of government employees gathering to do something in their free time.
They can and do meet on their own time. The problem here appears to be not that the meeting is listed in the newsletter (which is fine by me and by Nasa, but the text that looks like an affirmation of a sectarian position. As I said in an earlier post, it may be an overreaction, but it was to be safe.
SpaceMunkie has a more restrictive view which I can respect (and is my preference). I personally will accept (altho I wish people left behind supernatural mumbo-jumbo) people using public facilities as long as they pay the freight and don’t interfere, and that the facilities are open to all, including Satanists, athiests, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, ad infinitum. Some schools rent their gyms for sunday services. As long as that cost covers the whole costs, I’m OK with that.
Yes, I don’t have to listen to it, unless it is forced upon me by restrictions. I cannot leave work to not listen to it. Thus it encroaches on my right for self determination and freedom of MY religion.
Endorse it, there is the rub. What exactly constitutes endorsement? IMHO the act of allowing any religious group to promote or meet on government time or advertise in government newsletter constitutes endorsement – unless they pay for the expenses of said activities.
Hmmm
Where can I read up on this freedom FROM religion, of which you speak?
There are quite a few “religions” I would like to free myself from as well, so your guidance would be greatly appreciated.
I am an old man now… but I remember well the day the Apollo 8 astronauts read from the Book of Genesis as they orbited the moon for the first time.
Those were good days! Days of achievement. We went from nothing… to Mercury… to Gemini … to Apollo in less than 10 years! That is something that has not been repeated since.
… I may be old, I may now be getting slow… but I do think He shined His grace upon that era of space travel, like no time since. This is my sincere opinion.
I remember watching the broadcast at my girlfriend’s house with an excitement that I almost jumped out of my skin until I started hearing them pollute this historical moment to promote their superstitious mythology. I was disgusted and nauseated. It was so sad.
Appreciate your sharing your self-appointed contrarian view. Not. Really.
Can I post an add for my religious group, the Beelzebub Lucifer our Lord Satan Worship Organization regarding tonight orgy and sacrifice?
( wonder how long that would last in the newsletter before every “tolerant” Christian would be in uproar)
I say you should go for it. Try and see what happens. See if that would have EQUAL standing for protection under the Law and conform to Agency Policy. Would it be considered the same as the JSC group? I urge to try it.
Just like the military doesn’t want you to use the words Merry Christmas.