I think I understand your position, but I believe that schools can and should protect their students from purely verbal bullying and harassment even if no threat of violence is involved. When I reflect on my bad ol’ school days, it wasn’t the occasional violence that bothered me all that much. It was the incessant taunting, mockery, and insults that nearly drove me to suicide. Students have little means of escape from their peers, and if the rules cannot protect them from harassment then what are they supposed to do?
Luckily for me I did have a means of escape, because by chance I happened to live in a town with a special alternative high school with a very strict anti-bullying/harassment policy (possibly the strictest in the US). I transfered there before the end of my freshman year, and I sincerely believe that there is a good chance I would have either killed myself or dropped out of school had I not done so. Interestingly, my new school allowed us much greater freedom of speech and expression than the mainstream schools. We had no dress code – the only rules restricting our clothing were the ones regarding the no bullying/no drugs and alcohol rules. So we could, and did, wear hats, dress in drag, have pink hair and 20 facial piercings, or even wear a shirt that said “Fuck all ya’ll!” (One of my classmates really did do the last one repeatedly and without problem.) General misanthropy was tolerated, but “Fuck the Jews!” or “Fuck that bitch Lamia!” wouldn’t have been. Neither would “Homosexuals are going to burn in Hell.” And that, to my mind, is how it should be.
My only point is that if that kid had come in on Yom Ha’Shoah wearing a shirt that said “Jews killed Jesus,” he would have been at a minimum sent home, nobody would have complained (or at least been listened to had they complained), and we would not be having this discussion at present. The only reason we are is that the group he chose to target was gay people. I find that infuriating.
Which part are you mad about matt_mcl? The fact that there is no outrage about the student wearing the Jews killed Jesus rights being violated or that people support his right to wear this shirt?
The fact that there is a difference in the way the two are treated; that, one way or another, the kid who hates queers is more acceptable than the kid who hates Jews.
And you again ignore my saying that I see these as equivalent. But I guess that’s okay; at this point you’re arguing from assertion, not from reason.
Similar to what Homebrew is doing. Contrary to sending me into full defensive mode, he’s sending me into full bafflement mode. His position seems to be that the kid’s t-shirt inarguably includes phrases it doesn’t include, and that there’s no possible motive by which the kid didn’t mean to include these phrases that he chose not to include, and that since they’re inseparable in Homebrew’s mind, they’re inseparable in this kid’s mind. Although you’re right, Homebrew, that I can’t defend against this unassailable position, it’s not because the logic is so airtight. I simply can’t see how an otherwise intelligent person can make so many bizarre speculative leaps with a straight face.
Incidentally, I just read Leviticus 22, and it has nothing to do with homosexuals.
Where you see bullying, the Constitution sees the expression of a political/religious opinion. This asshole wasn’t following people around shouting at them that gays were going to burn in hell; he was just wearing a t-shirt. If people didn’t want to be subject to this harassment, they could avert their eyes.
Don’t laugh: that’s the expedient recommended by the Supreme Court in Cohen vs. California.
(By the way, this thread is making me read far more of Leviticus than I’m happy with. Turns out Hamish was probably just making a typo when he referred to Leviticus 22; he probably means Leviticus 20).
[QUOTE=treis]
Most absurd statement? I say that mainstream christians don’t condone violence against homosexuals and you trot our Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell?
Ohhhhhh so the lack of stones makes all the difference. Slash to the throat with a pocket knife, burned with kerosene and stomped with a boot are okay as long as it’s not stones.
By the way, those thingies that look like " " … They’re called quote marks in the vernacular. They indicate that the words between them were direct quotes from one of the assailants’ police statement.
Do guns count? What if the perpertrators claims explicitly to be a Christian as in the case of Ronald Gay on September 22, 2001. Gay entered a gay bar in Roanoke, Virginia, opened fire on the patrons, killing Danny Overstreet and injuring six others. Ronald said he was angry over what his name now meant, and deeply upset that three of his sons had changed their surname. He claimed that he had been told by God to find and kill homosexuals, describing himself as a “Christian Soldier working for my Lord”. But I’m sure he’s not a real Christian and that Leviticus never influenced his warped thinking.
Do you need more proof that it’s been less than 200 years (or even 200 days) since the last time a Christian assaulted a gay person?
I must wonder then – would a more narrowly focused T-shirt message like “Homosexuals like [gay student or staff member name here] are going to Hell” still be protected? How about “Jane Doe is a Big Fat 'Ho”?
No, because that would be considered personally intimidating, and in the last decade the Supreme Court has been pretty insistent that any activity that even hints of direct threat can be banned or punished by school authorities.
However, that doesn’t apply in this instance. I fail to understand why so many bizarre hypotheticals are being posed as if they are supposed to serve as rebuttals. Irrelevant “what-ifs” are not a valid line of legal argument.
As long as the t-shirt in question is not obscene and causes no disruption of normal school activities, the kid has an absolute right to wear it. See Barber vs. Dearborn School District (2003).
Am I the only person who actually believes in the saying, “I detest what you say but I defend to the death your right to say it”?
I think in this instance it does apply. I think the kid was intentionally trying to be disruptive by wearing that shirt on the particular day he did. He was intentionally trying to harass.
But you think that without evidence that this is true. The onus is on you to prove that he was intending to harass, and that the harassment he intended to do was of a degree sufficient to allow his free speech rights to be suppressed. So far, you’ve offered the fact that a verse he didn’t cite would be unacceptable if he had cited it, and that you believe he must have been referring to the verse that he didn’t cite. This is a bizarre argument, wholly lacking in reason.
The guy was an asshole, but he wasn’t saying anything that he’s not legally allowed to say.
I want to say that I understand your position, Left Hand and you make a good, rather convincing arguement. However, I’m convinced the kids was intentionally being disruptive and harassing.
No, he was expressing a political POV on the same day and in the same way that the pro-gay kids did–silently. He didn;t preach in the hallways, he didn’t verbally taunt the Day of Silence kids. All he did was wear a t-shirt with anti-gay religious texts on it. Where is it written that only pro-gay kids may demonstrate their political beliefs on that day? Why is it acceptable for the pro-gay kids to have a silent demonstration and the anti-gay kid is not? If freedom of speech is to have nay real meaning, we have to protect the rights of those we most vehemently diagree with.
I really don’t like being out of step with my gay brethren, but protecting freedom of expression for bigots under the First Amendment is ultimately the best way of protecting them as well.
Not at all. That’s fine. It’s lovely you see them as equivalent. I’m just irritated at the people who apparently don’t, and I think it’s interesting that one is causing comment and the other would not. That’s all.
No you did not understand what I was saying. People have argued that the quote advocated stoning people and my repsonse is that stoning along with other violence has not been acceptable in christianity for quite some time.
I know what quotation marks are, do you know what citation means? It means providing a source for your statement as evidence not just writing quotes into your post.
I never claimed that all christians don’t assault gay people, kick puppies, or hate babies. My position is that for the vast majority of christian religions violence is not acceptable even towards sinners. I’m not really sure what your position is but it seems that you want to attribute charecteristics of an extreme insane minority with the majority position. In this example the guy shot 7 people becuase his last name was Gay and his sons changed their names for crying outload. Hes a freaking nut for crying out loud with obvious mental problems not a normal loving christian. Its the same way with Islamic terrorists it is not accurate or acceptable to attribute their twisted beliefs with that of Muslims in general.
My last post got me thinking about this and I don’t mean to single you out ** matt_mcl ** but you hate the difference in the way the two are treated but look at this thread. People have been ripping christians becuase the actions of a minority and it has been largely overlooked but if someone said that Islam was a hateful and murderous religion while citing the Islamic terrorism they would have been quickly rebuked.
Ultimately I’ll have to concede that strictly speaking you and gobear are being more rational and probably correct. However, the little shit was intentionally being an ass.
That’s all we know for sure because WND is the only place this is being reported. I’ll admit I’m making some leaps, but I doubt the principal would have called him to the mat if he hadn’t done something more extreme to call attention to his shirt. I don’t think we’re getting the whole story from WND.
