substitute but for the word “gout”.
I have to learn to preview!!
When I was in school, there would be periodic locker searches to look for drugs, alcohol and weapons. The lockers are school property, but what’s in them are not. It always struck me as wrong. The administration said, “If you don’t have contraband, then you have nothing to worry about!” I guess that means that if the police wanted to search your apartment (having consent of the landlord), it’s okay because there’s nothing illegal in your apartment. I would consider that wrong too.
There have been other threads about egregious actions of school faculty. I’ve heard of 6-year-olds being suspended for having a G.I. Joe gun. (In case you don’t play with G.I. Joes, these are scaled to 1/12 size so the doll can use them.) Suspended for three inches of plastic? “But it’s a gun and we have zero tolerance!” What about the little girl who was suspended for having nail clippers? Or the one who was suspended because her purse had a chain on it? Granted, we don’t hear about all of the teachers who don’t suspend kids for having a gun on their charm bracelets. We only hear about the ones that do. And the school boards back them up. But there are enough stories to make it clear that are either too stupid to understand the concept of intent of a law (in this case, keeping weapons out of school, and keeping things that could be reasonably assumed to be weapons out of school) or choose not to use their intellect. It’s tantamount to saying all children are dangerous. Any kid who clips her nails is a sociopath who will, at the first opportunity, jab a nail file into a teacher’s throat, leaving her bleeding and gasping her last breath on the dingy floor of a depressing classroom floor.
We’re talking, as someone posted, about the “Buckle of the Bible Belt”. A place where “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” isn’t just a bumper sticker; it’s a fact. God said we will not abide witches in our midst. Freedom of Religion means freedom to openly practice Christianity (or Judaism, if you must). But keep an eye on those Buddhists and Moslems. Worshipping the god of the underworld is not a religion. It’s evil! Worshipping a tree is just stupid!
So what happens? A girl expreses interest in Wicca. She writes horror stories. That makes her a witch, and God said she must be outcast (if we can’t hang her, press her, drown her or burn her). It doesn’t matter if she “cast a spell” or not. Her teacher (and, boy is she getting a lesson now!) may be so appalled by her mere presence that he displayed physical manifestations of his mental unease. And there’s the excuse to get rid of her. “She turned me into a newt!.. (I got better.)”
Am I being judgmental without having both sides of the story? Yes. But I’ve been around fundies. IME this is just the sort of thing they would do.
I should learn to proofread.
Oh. I heard recently that the Church of Satan is officially recognized as a religion by the U.S. military, and that it’s followers are free to practice it just as Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists et al are free to practice their religions.
I grew up in and lived in Oklahoma for 28 years. Yes, the school administration is 99% probable to be overtly, fundamentally, and evangelically Christian. No doubt on my part. This is a place where teachers are allowed to and do keep KJV Bibles on their desks. Where my 6th grade homeroom teacher told homilies and parables during homeroom hour (driving me to take Band so I didn’t have to listen to him) and is now principal of one of the high-schools. For the sake of argument, given the predominate tone of Oklahoma religion and public education, it is a very safe assumption that the administration is overarchingly fundamentalist Christian.
In fact, in the northeastern part of the state (where that school is located), conservative Churches of Christ are one of the most common, along with very conservative Baptist churches. My wife grew up in a small town about 1/2 hour from Tulsa, and they weren’t allowed school dances or proms because of the vocal religious.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fletch *
**Okies from Muskogee “Dag blasted witch, we gonna haf to git sum religion in er’”. **[/Q]
That’s funny and everything but bon’t make the mistake of thinking that just cause we talk funny we are stupid.
Signed,
An Oklahoman
DITWD:
And again:
Okay. So:
Civil Suit in court= money-grubbing ACLU ambulance-chasers hell-bent on subverting truth for their own nefarious purposes, and certainly no kind of method for hearing both sides of a story and coming to any sort of valid conclusion.
Trial by public opinion in the local newspaper= a-ok.
Sorry, but I just can’t support you on that one.
aha, bon’t worry, we bon’t.
Good cause I would hate to bave to beat the biving bit out of you! Bunderstand?
Daniel, what the FUCK is your problem?! In the time I’ve been on this board, I’ve respected you as a thoughtful, intelligent, and thought-provoking poster. Then you pull this bigoted and blatantly untrue bullshit about lawyers out of your ass. When I read your post, I had to double-check the name of the poster because I couldn’t believe it was from you.
I’m on a case right now where the lawyer on the other side tried his damndest to suppress the truth. I got his ass disbarred, and sanctions imposed on him that are so large he has filed for bankruptcy. And I am very proud of that.
The whole theory of the adversarial legal system is that, when the parties, represented zealously by their attorneys, present their sides of the story to court, the truth will come out.
Sure, there are unethical lawyers out there. There are also unethical doctors, accountants, and toll-booth attendants. On the (rare) instances we come up against an unethical attorney, we do our damndest to take them down and out.
I can take a lawyer joke. As you may know, we lawyers love the damn things, and we probably made up most of them. It doesn’t mean that we aren’t trying to figure out the truth.
Come up with a better system for determining the truth than our legal system. Until you do, I’ll await your apology.
Sua
Absolutely- when we hear from BOTH sides, the truth will come out. And I do apologive for the gratuitous lawyer bashing, that was unfair, mean & petty. But you do know, that in the initial phases of a civil law suit, that the plaintiff’s side ONLY has to present their side- they do not have to mention any factors that would be beneficial to the defendant. Yes, they may not conceal them, and if asked, they have to spill them- but to START, in their intitial filing, which is all we have- they can be (and are expected to be) totally biased. So, we only have one side- and as you know full well- that is not “the truth”. The truth may well come out, true. And certainly, the ACLU can rarely be accused of being “greedy”. But “headline chasing”- that is more like them.
And, Lux- I certainly don’t agree with “trial by headline”, either- but it certainly wasn’t the defendant who leaked the story to the Press.
Johny- yes, it may well turn out that the administration is completely wrong- and biased to boot. But we can’t really make any decisions based only on one side of the story.
Apology accepted, Daniel, and I was just a tad over the top. :o
'Course, the real problem here is this thread, not the actions of plaintiffs, defendants, or their lawyers. We’ve started this thread before both sides of the story are out. Then again, we usually do that, and I’m not recommending we stop.
The school board is in a Catch-22, caught between defending themselves in the press and the (IMO) eminently reasonable policy prohibiting public airing of a child’s school records. OTOH, the plaintiff’s attorneys didn’t “leak” the story – they filed a lawsuit and, under U.S. law (and again reasonably, IMO) lawsuits, once filed, are public records. I don’t doubt someone on the plaintiff’s side “guided” the press to the lawsuit, but there is nothing inherently unethical in informing the press of a public event.
Another thing - earlier in this thread, there was a bit of a tiff about people jumping to the conclusion that the school board were a group of conservative Christians. Since one of the prayers for relief in the complaint is an order prohibiting the school board from banning all but Christian religious symbols, the assumption that the school board is made up of conservative Christians is not unreasonable.
Sua
Daniel, GET REAL. I’ve written many things in my journal that are thinly disguised horror stories, and I’ve also written several threats to people.
Why? Because it provides a good release.
If they want to lock me up because they think I’m the next Columbine, I’ll sue them for all they’re worth. I have morals and I have decency and I’m a Christian, but I see nothing wrong with Stephen King and anger-management.
DISCLAIMER: Just because a person is not a Christian does not mean they lack morals and decency. I’ve met non-Christians who were more moral and decent that a good bit of the Christians I know.
So? How is that actionable? Do not students have the right to wish their teachers harm? Simply saying “I’d like you to be harmed” is not a threat; it’s a statement of opinion. Saying “I’d enjoy harming you” is not a threat either. “I’m planning on harming you” is.
Ryan: the last time of threat- ie “I am planning you harm”, is an actual crime- and you can go to jail for it. The other types of threat “I want harm to come to you”- are very likely not crimes- but are still grounds for school penalties. Remember- students can get punished for wearing improper clothes, “talking back”, and many other thing which are not illegal.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Admend does not apply to a school paper- for example. Or at least as far as minor administrative punishments for putting “improper” stuff in there.
No, it’s not that clear. The measure of whether something is or is not a threat is based on what a reasonable person would believe under the circumstances.
There are scenarios in which I could say “I am going to kill you” that would NOT be a threat, and there are scenarios in which I could say “I’d enjoy killing you” that would. Absent context, it’s impossible to say.
It should be noted, though, that actually communicating the threat is a pretty important part of criminal intent. I note from the text of the lawsuit that the first suspension was based on private writing confiscated from the girl’s possessions.
Well, yes, if you made the statement “I’d enjoy harming you” within the context of pointing a gun at a bank teller, that would be illegal. However, that’s not the context that was given.
Danielinthewolvesden
Not in this context.
That doesn’t make it right.
That’s completely different. If this were about a student punished for publishing an incantation in a school newspaper, my attitude would be much different.