White Oak principal receives support following religious controversy

Mar 17, 2015

Photo: Michael Cavazos

By Bridget Ortigo

White Oak ISD has come under fire after high school Principal Dan Noll was recorded by a student quoting a Bible verse during the morning announcements.

The recording was sent to an atheist blogger who then forwarded it to the Freedom From Religion group in Wisconsin. Sam Grover, attorney for the group, said the readings violate the separation of church and state.

“We are confident that an investigation will reveal that Mr. Noll’s Bible readings have in fact taken place,” Grover stated in a letter to the district. “If confirmed, the practice is flatly unconstitutional and cannot continue.”

White Oak ISD Superintendent Michael Gilbert, who serves as the district’s spokesman, said he was fully aware of Noll’s use of Scripture during morning announcements.


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

11 comments on “White Oak principal receives support following religious controversy

  • 1
    Miserablegit says:

    Once again we have religious zealots desperate to catch them young and unless this is controlled America will always have problems eliminating religious brainwashing.



    Report abuse

  • “My recommended response to the Freedom From Religion Foundation is, ‘I’m sorry you feel that way. I will be praying for you and your staff daily,’ ” he said. “As a Christian brother, it will not promote the values we hold so dear to assail those that disagree with the gospel. We will state our case. We will make sure our rights are just as protected as anyone else that lives in this great country. We will continue to provide for all the needs of our students and we will do so while traveling the high road.”

    An example of religious arrogance.



    Report abuse

  • David R Allen Mar 17, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    An example of religious arrogance.

    These are people who wave bibles under their noses, listen to the ramblings of preachers, and magically acquire the “ability to tell right from wrong”!!!! – No need to bother studying state laws or codes of conduct!!



    Report abuse

  • As the advice of the Bible as to how to live life has little or nothing useful to say to modern people, can I safely assume that the Principal is a Nollist ?

    Jesus creeps in mysterious ways.



    Report abuse

  • These people never seem to understand that the constitution means them. They can’t grasp that spreading the ultimate truth could possibly be wrong. The only way it sinks in is to promote some religion they find obnoxious then explain the constitution stops all proselytising.



    Report abuse

  • Anyone taught by a Christian Brother knows exactly the values they hold dear, which is an excellent reason as to why religion should to be kept out of schools.



    Report abuse

  • Get a grip! I certainly don’t want christianity (or any other religion) taught to my children, but there is nothing wrong per se, in quoting something from the bible, unless it is a regular occurrence, or it is accompanied by proselytising, or the quote is religious rather than illustrating an appropriate point.

    I’m as fed up with the god thing as anyone else, but there are some good parts in the buybull, if one hunts hard enough. Would people be as up in arms if the man had quoted something appropriate from Confucius or Shakespeare or Gandhi? We want to protect our children from systematic, institutionalised religion, not pretend religions don’t exist, or that they contain no value.



    Report abuse

  • “Get a Grip”. The point is that Principal Dan Noll would never even dream of quoting something appropriate from Confucius, Shakespeare or Ghandi. If this was the case and there had been a fair spread of quotes from other religions, literature etc. there probably wouldn’t be any issues. It is always without exception exclusive quotes from their own religious texts. They can’t have it both way’s can they? It’s either everyone/religion is represented or none.



    Report abuse

  • everyone/religion represented or none

    Simples, but folks refuse to abide. This includes the archaic u.s. ‘pledge of allegiance’ – not only is the god part challenged (as should be), now language also. Cut the clutter and just learn, ffs.



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.