Podcasts about milford central school

There are just over 8 billion people on earth and according to World Population Review, an estimated 2 billion of those are children between the ages of 0-14. This means it's critical that children be reached with the Gospel message. One such group that's focusing on this demographic is Child Evangelism Fellowship. Through their Good News Clubs and other outreach efforts, they have a vision of reaching every child, every nation, every day. --Moises Esteves is Executive Vice President of Child Evangelism Fellowship. He was born and raised in Portugal, was saved at the age of 9, and at the age of 17 felt God's call into vocation ministry.--In 2001, the Supreme Court decided by a 6-3 vote, in favor of Child Evangelism Fellowship in the case of Good News Clubs v. Milford Central School. The court said it was constitutional for CEF to hold Good News Clubs in public schools after the last bell rings and that they could not be discriminated against because of their religious content. --Each child must have a parental permission slip in order to attend. The gatherings run for an hour to an hour and 15 minutes after the school day has ended. During this time children are taught a Bible lesson, they sing songs, there are games, and sometimes there's a missionary story.--In the past year in the U.S., CEF ministered to 102,000 children, although they're still rebuilding post-COVID. That's about 2,600 clubs in the public schools with an additional 1,000 clubs in other locations.--On this broadcast you'll hear about- ---- The importance of local church partnership with CEF.-- The 4-14 window. - -...and much more-

There are just over 8 billion people on earth and according to World Population Review, an estimated 2 billion of those are children between the ages of 0-14. This means it's critical that children be reached with the Gospel message. One such group that's focusing on this demographic is Child Evangelism Fellowship. Through their Good News Clubs and other outreach efforts, they have a vision of reaching every child, every nation, every day. --Moises Esteves is Executive Vice President of Child Evangelism Fellowship. He was born and raised in Portugal, was saved at the age of 9, and at the age of 17 felt God's call into vocation ministry.--In 2001, the Supreme Court decided by a 6-3 vote, in favor of Child Evangelism Fellowship in the case of Good News Clubs v. Milford Central School. The court said it was constitutional for CEF to hold Good News Clubs in public schools after the last bell rings and that they could not be discriminated against because of their religious content. --Each child must have a parental permission slip in order to attend. The gatherings run for an hour to an hour and 15 minutes after the school day has ended. During this time children are taught a Bible lesson, they sing songs, there are games, and sometimes there's a missionary story.--In the past year in the U.S., CEF ministered to 102,000 children, although they're still rebuilding post-COVID. That's about 2,600 clubs in the public schools with an additional 1,000 clubs in other locations.--On this broadcast you'll hear about- ---- The importance of local church partnership with CEF.-- The 4-14 window. - -...and much more-

A public high school football coach is claiming a right to pray with students on the 50-yard-line immediately after the game while still on duty. What's the best way to protect religious freedom for everyone in this situation? Amanda and Holly talk about the Supreme Court case of Kennedy v. Bremerton, what's at stake, and how various groups are portraying what really happened. They go over BJC's brief, which works to find a solution for everyone that protects the rights of students to be free to make their own choices about what religious practices they want to do and when to do so. Amanda and Holly also discuss the lines between private practice and government speech, and the different rights of students – who are compelled to be at school – and government employees, who represent the government.    SHOW NOTES: Segment 1: What is going on in this case? Outlining the facts and setting the record straight (starting at 00:50) In episode 10, Amanda and Holly discussed Shurtleff v. Boston, the flag-raising case at Boston City Hall. BJC filed a brief in the Kennedy v. Bremerton case, defending students' rights to religious liberty. You can read the brief here, and read more about it on our website in this article: BJC urges Supreme Court to reject high school coach's defense of on-field prayers with students. BJC's brief was led by Holly and BJC Associate General Counsel Jennifer Hawks, and it was written by church-state scholars Douglas Laycock and Christopher Lund.   Segment 2: Previewing the oral arguments (starting at 16:30) Amanda and Holly mentioned several cases involving case law about the rights of government employees and the rights of the government as an employer: Pickering v. Board of Education (1968) Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) They also mentioned cases about religion and public schools and speech that are relevant to this case: Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) Santa Fe v. Doe (2000) (another case involving prayer at public school football games) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) You can read BJC's guidance on religion in the public schools – including consensus guidelines put together by diverse groups in decades past – by visiting BJConline.org/religion-public-schools-resources/.   Segment 3: Religion and sports in our lives today  (starting at 33:56) Amanda and Holly discussed this article by Kelsey Dallas, published by Deseret News: Trying to raise successful kids? Experts say you shouldn't forget about faith Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. You can support these conversations with a gift to BJC. 

The sixth episode features special guest Vicki Winchester, a health coach who began her personal health journey on April 2, 2018. To date, Ms. Winchester has shed 170 lbs, and reversed health issues as she took control of her wellness. Ms. Winchester began coaching others on August 1, 2018; she and her team now coach more than 200 individuals in Otsego County, and beyond. Featured Guest on Episode Six Vicki Winchester (Oneonta, NY) was born in 1971. She graduated from Cooperstown Central School in 1989, and continued her education at Herkimer County Community College, earning her Associate Degree of Applied Science in 1991. In 1994 she attended the National Tractor Trailer School and earned her Class A license. After working on the road for some time, she served at Milford Central School transportation department as a bus driver for 24 years, where she is still currently employed. In April, 2019 Vicki began her health journey, and in August 2019, became a health coach. Shortly thereafter, Vicki became a certified health coach. With the support of her team, Vicki currently serves more than 200 clients in the surrounding upstate NY area and beyond. She is a proud mother of 2 sons, an ecstatic grandmother of 3 grandsons, and has been happily married to the love of her life, Tony Winchester, since 1996. From Heartache to Healing and Hope Creator and Host: Bernadette Winters Bell, LMSW, PLLC graduated Summa Cum Laude from Adelphi University in 1994, with a Masters in Social Work, License No. and State: 049813-1 New York. She has more than 30 years of experience in the life, loss and grief sphere with children, adolescents and adults. Areas of practice include therapy, counseling, hospice, trauma work and bereavement support groups. She has served as an educator for groups and organizations such as schools, houses of worship, businesses and municipalities, and as a first responder for crisis management. Her life-long practice of giving back continues with community pro bono work. The pillars of Bernadette’s practice are emotional healing, psychological growth and spiritual exploration. Her goal is to empower clients to be stewards of their own well-being. The From Heartache to Healing and Hope podcast will be offered to the community on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/from-heartache-to-healing-and-hope/id1536455260 For download in audio and video format at www.fromheartachetohealingandhope.com And on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/FromHeartachetoHealingandHope Please visit the website for more information or contact producer Beatrice Georgalidis. To be considered as a featured guest, please email BCGA at beatrice@bgcagency.com. Producer: Beatrice Georgalidis is the owner of Beatrice Georgalidis LLC, BGCA (Beatrice Georgalidis Creative Agency) and the executive director of Bright Hill Press, a regional arts organization in New York State. She is the owner of Certain Grants LLC, a grant writing firm upstate New York that specializes in fundraising and grant writing. She has been awarded numerous grants and awards by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Regional Economic Development Council of New York, New York State Council on the Arts, Bader Foundation in Milwaukee and many more. She has worked for more than twenty years in film and television as a writer, producer and videographer for many companies including Sundance Channel, MTV, VH1, and for her own companies since 2013, Certain Grants LLC and BGCA (Beatrice Georgalidis Creative Agency) serving the Catskills and beyond. She spearheaded the Experiential Learning Program, an apprentice program which has graduated more than fifty of the best and brightest college students, training hands-on in grant writing, production, design, fundraising and advertising. Her students have gone on to prestigious appointments at big five publishing houses, national magazines, broadcast television, and more. She is a 200 RYT (Registered Yoga Teacher, 200 hours) and a certified aerial yoga instructor, and teaches at Fit To Be Tied Yoga in Cooperstown, NY. About From Heartache to Healing and Hope LLC From Heartache to Healing and Hope LLC was founded in 2020 by Bernadette Winters Bell, LLC. Her offices are located in Oneonta, NY where she has been practicing for more than three decades. http://fromheartachetohealingandhope.com/ BGCA (Beatrice Georgalidis Creative Agency, Beatrice Georgalidis LLC), a boutique advertising and production firm serving the Catskills, was founded in 2012. https://www.bgcagency.com/ Nothing that grieves us can be called little: by the eternal laws of proportion a child's loss of a doll and a king's loss of a crown are events of the same size. — Mark Twain

Today's Rapid Response Friday gives you a sneak preview of what to expect from the person we predict will become Donald Trump's next nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. We discuss: Why it's likely to be Kavanaugh and not any of the other rumored contenders, especially flavor-of-the-minute Amy Coney Barrett Kavanaugh's view of the First Amendment's establishment clause and the future of Lemon v. Kurtzman Kavanaugh's views on abortion How Kavanaugh differs (and how he doesn't!) from Neil Gorsuch when it comes to Chevron deference The weird conservative hit squad out to get Kavanaugh And much, much more! After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 involving assault with an unloaded gun.  If you'd like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances Thomas was just a guest on Episode 421 of the Cognitive Dissonance Podcast.  If you'd like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links If you want a head start on Tuesday's show, check out the just-released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report. This is the Notre Dame speech/law review article in which Kavanaugh lays out his judicial philosophy and essentially auditions for the Supreme Court. We discussed the following cases:  Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), Priests for Life v. Department of Health & Human Services, 808 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc), Garza v. Hargan, 874 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (en banc), United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (D.C. Cir., 2017) (en banc), PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (2018) (en banc), Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir 2011), and Heller v. D.C., 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)! Right-wing weirdo roundups:  Here's the National Review endorsement of Kavanaugh; this is the truly bizarre Jacobs piece in The Federalist; and here is the Federalist Society's own rebuttal. Finally, a preemptive Andrew Was Wrong:  Here's Raymond Kethledge's University of Michigan address on how bad Chevron deference is. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

An important U.S. Supreme Court case affected religious practice and speech in public schools. It was the Good News Club versus Milford Central School case from 2001. This PDF document provides background of the case, decision by the SCOTUS majority, and supporting and opposing positions by individual SCOTUS justices.

An important U.S. Supreme Court case affected religious practice and speech in public schools. It was the Good News Club versus Milford Central School case from 2001. This audio file provides the actual argument before the Supreme Court. The voices include the attorney representing the Good News Club and voices of the Supreme Court justices as they ask questions. Under New York law, Milford Central School policy authorizes district residents to use its building after school for certain activities. Two parents were district residents who were eligible to use the school's facilities. They sought approval of their proposed use and sponsorship of the Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children. The parents submitted a request to hold the Club's weekly afterschool meetings at the school. Milford denied the request reasoning that the proposed use, including singing songs, hearing Bible lessons, memorizing scripture, and praying, was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy. The Club filed suit alleging that the denial violated its free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ultimately, the District Court granted Milford summary judgment to not grant permission. The parents then appealed the decision. After hearing the case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that because the subject matter of the Club's was "quintessentially religious", and the activities "fall outside the bounds of pure 'moral and character development,'" According to them, Milford's policy of excluding the Club's meetings was constitutional subject discrimination, not unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The parents appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The question for the court was, “Did Milford Central School violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the Good News Club when it excluded the Club from meeting after hours at the school? If a violation occurred, was it justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause?” The court reversed the previous court decisions by ruling six justices to three in favor of the parents and the Good News Club.

SO2-E06 U.S. Supreme Court case affected religious practice and speech in public schools. It was the Good News Club versus Milford Central School case from 2001. We will hear the voice of Justice Clarence Thomas as he delivers the opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court justices. Under New York law, Milford Central School policy authorizes district residents to use its building after school for certain activities. Two parents were district residents who were eligible to use the school's facilities. They sought approval of their proposed use and sponsorship of the Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children. The parents submitted a request to hold the Club's weekly afterschool meetings at the school. Milford denied the request reasoning that the proposed use, including singing songs, hearing Bible lessons, memorizing scripture, and praying, was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy. The Club filed suit alleging that the denial violated its free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ultimately, the District Court granted Milford summary judgment to not grant permission. The parents then appealed the decision. After hearing the case, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that because the subject matter of the Club's was "quintessentially religious", and the activities "fall outside the bounds of pure 'moral and character development,'" According to them, Milford's policy of excluding the Club's meetings was constitutional subject discrimination, not unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The parents appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States. The question for the court was, “Did Milford Central School violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the Good News Club when it excluded the Club from meeting after hours at the school? If a violation occurred, was it justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause?” The court reversed the previous court decisions by ruling six justices to three in favor of the parents and the Good News Club. This podcast contains an oral summary of the SCOTUS decision by Justice Thomas who spoke on behalf of the majority of the justices. This is one about three minutes. Accompanying this audio podcast are three other items. First, an audio of the argument delivered by the attorneys representing the parents. This is about over sixty minutes in length. In addition to the voice of the attorney representing the Good News Club, you will also hear various Supreme Court justices asking questions. It is quite an interactive event with the justices often interrupting the attorney. Second item included is a formal document that contains information about the case, the formal written opinion by the majority of the justices, and comments by individual justices. Some of them join with the majority, some oppose the decision, and others support in part and oppose in other. The final document included is a two-page handout on how to read a Supreme Court decision. This podcast is part of the LifePodcast Network which is a group of family-friendly podcasts bringing a positive message of hope and inspiration. Check out the LifePodcast Network at http://LifePodcast.net Audio recordings for this podcast come from a variety of sources. This one comes from the Oyez SCOTUS database of audio recordings and written documents. Checkout the website https://www.oyez.org Oyez (pronounced oh-yay), a free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Chicago-Kent College of Law and Justia.com, is a multimedia archive devoted to making the Supreme Court of the United States accessible to everyone. It is a complete and authoritative source for all of the Court’s audio since the installation of a recording system in October 1955. Oyez offers transcript-synchronized and searchable audio, plain-English case summaries, illustrated decision information, and full text Supreme Court opinions. Oyez also provides detailed information on every justice throughout the Court’s history. This podcast is available through the following podcast directories and apps: iTunes, Libsyn, Google Play Music, TuneIn, Stitcher, PlayerFM, Overcast, Pocket Casts, iCatcher, iHeartRadio, RSSRadio, and Castamatic. It is available through the following websites: http://Arendale.org, http://historicvoices.org, and Historic Voices Facebook page. Please post comments to the individual episodes at http://historicvoices.org, podcast review and rating section within iTunes and other apps, or email to me. Thanks for listening, David Arendale, arendale@umn.edu