I am “worried” about the issue of student-on-student abuse, but I do see a need to balance attempts to address that with free speech concerns, and it has no bearing on what I have posted in this thread. What I have posted is regarding the teacher-on-student abuse issue. My evidence is the portion of the law that specifically authorizes teachers to use their positions to advance religious belief in violation of the Establishment Clause.
OK, good clarification.
Again, the text is: * This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.*
I mentioned earlier that a teacher using his position to advance his religious views would be violative of the Establishment Clause anyway, even without this law.
Your response seems to be that it wouldn’t matter – that the even though Establishment Clause is violated, “…If you don’t have the fortitude to sue to overturn this law and withstand the sort of physical and economic attacks that will be directed at you from local Christians when you are labeled the ‘fag lawsuit anti-Christian guy,’ then you’re shit out of luck.”
But it seems to me that the same objection would apply to THIS law. That is, let’s imagine that the offending passage were struck from the law. If your argument is that schools or individual teachers would violate Establishment Clause law with impunity, why do you imagine that this law would be more effective? Why wouldn’t this law, too, be subject to the “…If you don’t have the fortitude to sue to overturn this law and withstand the sort of physical and economic attacks that will be directed at you from local Christians when you are labeled the ‘fag lawsuit anti-Christian guy,’ then you’re shit out of luck?”
But see it doesn’t do that. Not prohibiting something is not the same thing as authorizing it. That portion of the code states “This section does not prohibit…”. Other sections or laws may, that section won’t.
Did you forget to take your medication or something?
Regards,
Shodan
Holy shit, sugar queen. O.o That got out of hand real fast.
I know, anyone who thinks women or gays or people must be INSANE!
The depths of evil to which conservatives sink on a daily basis is astounding.
There’s a difference between “I don’t like your opinion” and “you vile piece of trash”; just like there’s a difference between " I don’t see any problems with a law which doesn’t really have the problems attributed to it" and “I watch women die and beat up gay teens in my spare time for jollies”. That post was just so far out of line it’s not even funny. Seriously.
I’m not trying to be funny, I’m trying to condemn people who view women and homosexuals as less than human, which those who would deny the right to abortion or protect those who abuse gay teenagers necessarily do.
You obviously sympathize with the inhuman position; that’s your problem (and society’s) to deal with.
I hope you know what you are talking about, because that would make one of us.
Me pointing out that you were blowing smoke about how abortion is de facto illegal in many US states is “sinking to the depths of evil”, or shows that I don’t think gays or women are people?
You need either to get off the drugs, or triple the dosage.
Regards,
Shodan
This post is much appreciated. I know you’ve now been lumped in with the sympathizers, and I’m sorry that happened.
He was wrong to say that abortion is de facto illegal… but not crazy wrong. There are state that have only one abortion clinic, and that state of affairs exists because of antipathy to abortion and up-to-the-legal line maneuvering by state legislatures. Fidelity to honest argument requires this admission.
IOW, when it comes to extremists let’s make sure ours win?
Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just here to put words in other peoples’ mouths?
FWIW, thanks to Bricker for the legal insight (and FTR, as a lawyer (although not in the US) I enjoy very much your insights, and do wish less drama would be present in this thread).
As I understand it, the quoted portion does not have any legal effect as such speech would be covered by the First Amendment in any event, and no law would be able to prohibit such speech. Why then did the legislature feel the need to add the quoted words, when simply staying silent would be enough, in particular since the sentence immediately preceding already makes clear that the law does not purport to abridge first amendment rights?
I suppose we should all shrug and say “politics as usual”. Dog whistles and all that.
Lumped in? When you start sharing legal insight like that, and a lot of my favorite people on youtube (including an atheist high school teacher and an atheist gay law professor) start siding with you… Tbh, I’m now fairly convinced that I should’ve been more informed before writing up that OP.
That’s pretty funny considering the post I responded to. Did you not notice that this
<blockquote>
Which is EXACTLY what some liberals would love to see happen, because for them the First Amendment only covers speech they agree with.</blockquote>
is what you just accused me of? Funny huh!?
You seem to be so concerned about the extreme of someone crying bullying because some Christian expressed their honest belief in a discussion or conversation that you’re willing to disregard the extreme of some Christian behaving like the Westboro Baptists. The reason bullying, especially regarding students who are openly gay, has gotten attention is because it has been ignored for too long.
If you’re remotely interested in another perspective watch, “The Bible Tells Me So”. A documentary about the hurt and harm done for decades by Christianity indoctrinating society with beliefs that being gay is sick or perverted.
But this is not because the people of those states lack the knowledge or resources to make an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is what he attributed it to. That is crazy wrong. National organizations like NARAL and the ACLU appeal all restrictions on abortion to death and beyond, and do not limit their actions to one set of states.
There you are, using terms nobody understand again.
Regards,
Shodan
Even then, in my view you’re better served by pointing out precisely what portion of his claim you’re rejecting, because a blanket rejection will only invite the opponent to defend his strongest point.
And it’s also worth acknowledging as well that even NARAL and the ACLU do not have unlimited coffers; they have to make choices about use of litigation resources just like any other advocacy groups.
Consider an issue where conservatives often find themselves on the other side of things: gun control. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear guidance in Heller and McDonald, many cities have crafted -up-to-the-line legal restrictions against guns. Do we shrug and say, “Hey, good for them, and we have the NRA to appeal all restrictions to death and beyond anyway?”
No – at least I don’t. I regard those efforts as quasi-cheating. The intent of the Court’s ruling is clear, and to skirt the edges as they are is simply not fair.
But how can I say that about gun control without recognizing the same tactic being used against abortion? The tactic can’t be worthy of condemnation when used in a way I don’t like and approbation when used in a way I do.
Did you happen to read post #95?
Where did I say “good for them” or anything equivalent?
Regards,
Shodan
I did. To refresh everyone’s recollection, here it is:
I’m sure there’s no such state.
But I also think the gravamen of his complaint was similar to what I’m talking about when DC loses the Heller case and responds by not granting any zoning licenses to gun shops, pointing out that federal law requires a resident to buy from a shop in his own jurisdiction and that now they are in compliance with the law.
Consider North Dakota. There is only one abortion clinic in North Dakota. While it’s true that North Dakota is not a densely populated state, it’s also true that North Dakota’s antipathy towards abortion has something to do with that fact.
To not acknowledge that up front is, in my view, not the best approach to good debate.
Well, I suppose I inferred a general sense of approval from you. If you didn’t try to convey that and don’t actually have it, I withdraw the characterization.