I am starting this thread here for those who aren't participating in The God Delusion debate because I think it warrants a much wider range of attention.
In the book, the author states a case in which in 2004, a 12 year old boy in Ohio wore a t-shirt to school that said "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!". The school told the student not to wear it, the parents sued the school not on the basis of freedom of speech, but freedom of religion. The courts agreed with the parents. The Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona argued that the t-shirt wasn't about hate speech, but religious speech. Hence it warrants freedom of religion.
Another cited example is a church in New Mexico that believes the use of the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine found in hoasca tea enhances their ability to understand God. The US Supreme Court in 2006 agreed, despite the fact that the drug is illegal. The church got an exemption. However, in the case of cannabis for chemo patients, though few states legalized it for medical purposes, the federal government wont recognize this and can still prosecute you for it use based on the 2005 ruling of the Supreme Court.
So my question for debate should be obvious:
What is the limitation of freedom of religion. Is it being abused?
Freedom of Religion
Moderator: Moderators
Freedom of Religion
Post #1What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
Re: Freedom of Religion
Post #2"Freedom of religion" is a broad term. When most people think about it, they usually only consider from the perspective of their own religion. There is still an "applause" (if even just internal) when something gets struck down as not right when it is an excercised belief by a religion outside of our own. The examples you give are in American jurisdiction and should rightly be protected under the Constitution. However, the American constitution is very fluid....or, rather, it is subject to reinterpretation by each generation. I don't know that the founding fathers could have wisely seen that when they established it or not, but that is how it has been. As it is, the court does not recognize "the Living God," the "great I Am," of Christianity as the state sanctioned God. To the religious "right" that's horrific. But, the Constitution they live under is supposed to protect the freedom of religion, which is a broad term. And it has always been that way. I am in agreement with all the cases you mention, but on the first, I think it would have been better to prosecute under the guise of "freedom of speech." And in the case of the tea, I had heard about that. Jimi Hendrix used to say LSD helped him see God and now the ruling opens up the possibility of "churches" popping up to bring their "needs" before the court in order that they can understand God better. That does not mean i agree with any of the "ideas" of those churches, but protection should be considered where it is legitimate. There are athiest groups that have established themselves as "religions" in order to get the same "tax exemption" protection as churches, which does not bother me, but the point is that as long as the loopholes are there, people will always find a way to use them.Confused wrote:I am starting this thread here for those who aren't participating in The God Delusion debate because I think it warrants a much wider range of attention.
In the book, the author states a case in which in 2004, a 12 year old boy in Ohio wore a t-shirt to school that said "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!". The school told the student not to wear it, the parents sued the school not on the basis of freedom of speech, but freedom of religion. The courts agreed with the parents. The Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona argued that the t-shirt wasn't about hate speech, but religious speech. Hence it warrants freedom of religion.
Another cited example is a church in New Mexico that believes the use of the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine found in hoasca tea enhances their ability to understand God. The US Supreme Court in 2006 agreed, despite the fact that the drug is illegal. The church got an exemption. However, in the case of cannabis for chemo patients, though few states legalized it for medical purposes, the federal government wont recognize this and can still prosecute you for it use based on the 2005 ruling of the Supreme Court.
So my question for debate should be obvious:
What is the limitation of freedom of religion. Is it being abused?
As far as the canabas for chemo issue, I think is just another tragedy related to our American health care system, which i think is a total mess and probably a whole other subject. People die and are in pain while the government and the FDA plays politics with things that will help. Not to mention the power of the insurance and drug companies. .........
Re: Freedom of Religion
Post #3Good views, but still not sure they address the issue. You say protection of religious ideas should be considered where it is legitimate. But when is it not? In the case of the boys t-shirt, what was written was clearly offensive and would be considered hate speech by many. However, the courts ruled in favor of the t-shirt simply because the parents and the organization that funded their defense stated that it was based on religious morality and was therefor protected by freedom of religion. Now ask a homosexual person, they would say the t-shirt was a hate speech, clearly prejudicial and violates their freedom of attending a non-hostile educational institution. So when does the rights of a human outweigh the right to freedom of religion? We know when the rights of a human outweigh the right to the freedom of speech. Hate speeches violate human rights. Certain words can't be used on public radios and televisions because of their offensive nature. Yet freedom of religion seems to be able to get a free pass. How is this right? When do we draw the line? Where is the line?twobitsmedia wrote:"Freedom of religion" is a broad term. When most people think about it, they usually only consider from the perspective of their own religion. There is still an "applause" (if even just internal) when something gets struck down as not right when it is an excercised belief by a religion outside of our own. The examples you give are in American jurisdiction and should rightly be protected under the Constitution. However, the American constitution is very fluid....or, rather, it is subject to reinterpretation by each generation. I don't know that the founding fathers could have wisely seen that when they established it or not, but that is how it has been. As it is, the court does not recognize "the Living God," the "great I Am," of Christianity as the state sanctioned God. To the religious "right" that's horrific. But, the Constitution they live under is supposed to protect the freedom of religion, which is a broad term. And it has always been that way. I am in agreement with all the cases you mention, but on the first, I think it would have been better to prosecute under the guise of "freedom of speech." And in the case of the tea, I had heard about that. Jimi Hendrix used to say LSD helped him see God and now the ruling opens up the possibility of "churches" popping up to bring their "needs" before the court in order that they can understand God better. That does not mean i agree with any of the "ideas" of those churches, but protection should be considered where it is legitimate. There are athiest groups that have established themselves as "religions" in order to get the same "tax exemption" protection as churches, which does not bother me, but the point is that as long as the loopholes are there, people will always find a way to use them.Confused wrote:I am starting this thread here for those who aren't participating in The God Delusion debate because I think it warrants a much wider range of attention.
In the book, the author states a case in which in 2004, a 12 year old boy in Ohio wore a t-shirt to school that said "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!". The school told the student not to wear it, the parents sued the school not on the basis of freedom of speech, but freedom of religion. The courts agreed with the parents. The Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona argued that the t-shirt wasn't about hate speech, but religious speech. Hence it warrants freedom of religion.
Another cited example is a church in New Mexico that believes the use of the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine found in hoasca tea enhances their ability to understand God. The US Supreme Court in 2006 agreed, despite the fact that the drug is illegal. The church got an exemption. However, in the case of cannabis for chemo patients, though few states legalized it for medical purposes, the federal government wont recognize this and can still prosecute you for it use based on the 2005 ruling of the Supreme Court.
So my question for debate should be obvious:
What is the limitation of freedom of religion. Is it being abused?
As far as the canabas for chemo issue, I think is just another tragedy related to our American health care system, which i think is a total mess and probably a whole other subject. People die and are in pain while the government and the FDA plays politics with things that will help. Not to mention the power of the insurance and drug companies. .........
In regards to the cannabis, I agree that politicians shouldn't be dictating medicine and that the US medical system is screwed up (I work in it). But what is wrong with this nation when a church can use hallucinogens to get high to find their God, but medicine can't use cannabis for nausea for chemo patients, or cocaine for pain control for the terminally ill when the strongest opiate (Fentanyl) won't control their pain any longer? How does religion trump medicine?
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
Re: Freedom of Religion
Post #4I guess I don't see the shirt as offensive. It is stating a religious viewpoint. If it said "I hate homosexuals and islam and abortionists" than it would be clear hate speech. The problem that I see with things like this is that we start going into the realm of "thought police." It becomes a matter of not what we do, but what someone thinks we did. And if what someone thinks we did, rather than what we meant or actually did, starts to become more prevalent in the courts...we are ALL in trouble. The other problem with a lot of this kind of stuff is that I do not believe at all that the Constitution was designed to protect us from being offended. Once upon a time, if you disagreed you could just flip him off and go your own way. Now you can get a lawyer and they can get a lawyer because they were offended because you flipped them off.Confused wrote:Good views, but still not sure they address the issue. You say protection of religious ideas should be considered where it is legitimate. But when is it not? In the case of the boys t-shirt, what was written was clearly offensive and would be considered hate speech by many. However, the courts ruled in favor of the t-shirt simply because the parents and the organization that funded their defense stated that it was based on religious morality and was therefor protected by freedom of religion. Now ask a homosexual person, they would say the t-shirt was a hate speech, clearly prejudicial and violates their freedom of attending a non-hostile educational institution.twobitsmedia wrote:"Freedom of religion" is a broad term. When most people think about it, they usually only consider from the perspective of their own religion. There is still an "applause" (if even just internal) when something gets struck down as not right when it is an excercised belief by a religion outside of our own. The examples you give are in American jurisdiction and should rightly be protected under the Constitution. However, the American constitution is very fluid....or, rather, it is subject to reinterpretation by each generation. I don't know that the founding fathers could have wisely seen that when they established it or not, but that is how it has been. As it is, the court does not recognize "the Living God," the "great I Am," of Christianity as the state sanctioned God. To the religious "right" that's horrific. But, the Constitution they live under is supposed to protect the freedom of religion, which is a broad term. And it has always been that way. I am in agreement with all the cases you mention, but on the first, I think it would have been better to prosecute under the guise of "freedom of speech." And in the case of the tea, I had heard about that. Jimi Hendrix used to say LSD helped him see God and now the ruling opens up the possibility of "churches" popping up to bring their "needs" before the court in order that they can understand God better. That does not mean i agree with any of the "ideas" of those churches, but protection should be considered where it is legitimate. There are athiest groups that have established themselves as "religions" in order to get the same "tax exemption" protection as churches, which does not bother me, but the point is that as long as the loopholes are there, people will always find a way to use them.Confused wrote:I am starting this thread here for those who aren't participating in The God Delusion debate because I think it warrants a much wider range of attention.
In the book, the author states a case in which in 2004, a 12 year old boy in Ohio wore a t-shirt to school that said "Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!". The school told the student not to wear it, the parents sued the school not on the basis of freedom of speech, but freedom of religion. The courts agreed with the parents. The Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona argued that the t-shirt wasn't about hate speech, but religious speech. Hence it warrants freedom of religion.
Another cited example is a church in New Mexico that believes the use of the hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine found in hoasca tea enhances their ability to understand God. The US Supreme Court in 2006 agreed, despite the fact that the drug is illegal. The church got an exemption. However, in the case of cannabis for chemo patients, though few states legalized it for medical purposes, the federal government wont recognize this and can still prosecute you for it use based on the 2005 ruling of the Supreme Court.
So my question for debate should be obvious:
What is the limitation of freedom of religion. Is it being abused?
As far as the canabas for chemo issue, I think is just another tragedy related to our American health care system, which i think is a total mess and probably a whole other subject. People die and are in pain while the government and the FDA plays politics with things that will help. Not to mention the power of the insurance and drug companies. .........
I do not believe this at all. A hate speech is offensive. But no ones rights are violated. What right is violated?Hate speeches violate human rights.
I am not sure there is a definite line on anything in regards to speech. Don Imus will probably tell you that and so would Howard Stern. And neither of them are religious, or at least not very. So i do not think religion is getting any free pass.Certain words can't be used on public radios and televisions because of their offensive nature. Yet freedom of religion seems to be able to get a free pass. How is this right? When do we draw the line? Where is the line?
For that question I do not know. But if I needed canabasis for chemo right now I would consider establishing a church like the one in New Mexico as the loophole.In regards to the cannabis, I agree that politicians shouldn't be dictating medicine and that the US medical system is screwed up (I work in it). But what is wrong with this nation when a church can use hallucinogens to get high to find their God, but medicine can't use cannabis for nausea for chemo patients, or cocaine for pain control for the terminally ill when the strongest opiate (Fentanyl) won't control their pain any longer? How does religion trump medicine?
Re: Freedom of Religion
Post #5The point is the t-shirt is being worn in a public school. A place in which all children should be free to gain an education without being subjected to a hostile or condemning environment. A child adopted by a gay couple could quite easily have issues here. An islamic child as well. The views express hatred of homosexuals, abortionists, and islamics by essentially condemning them or their beliefs. It has nothing to do with thought police. It is directly related to human rights. This is a matter of what the t-shirt represented blatantly. Not what someone thought it might represent. Your views on the consititution may be correct. But that is irrelevant. This isn't about being offended. It is about human rights. The right to attend school without being subjected to condemnation. Furthermore, how would you feel if PBS broadcasted pornography at 2:00 in the afternoon?twobitsmedia wrote:I guess I don't see the shirt as offensive. It is stating a religious viewpoint. If it said "I hate homosexuals and islam and abortionists" than it would be clear hate speech. The problem that I see with things like this is that we start going into the realm of "thought police." It becomes a matter of not what we do, but what someone thinks we did. And if what someone thinks we did, rather than what we meant or actually did, starts to become more prevalent in the courts...we are ALL in trouble. The other problem with a lot of this kind of stuff is that I do not believe at all that the Constitution was designed to protect us from being offended. Once upon a time, if you disagreed you could just flip him off and go your own way. Now you can get a lawyer and they can get a lawyer because they were offended because you flipped them off.
Confused wrote: Hate speeches violate human rights.
If that hate speech is being given at the local high school pep rally, do you feel the same? If the hate speech is being given where you work, does this not create a hostile work environment? If the hate speech is being given by a 12 year old as his essay on morality to the entire 6th grade class, is it a violation of the right to an education free of hostility?twobitsmedia wrote:I do not believe this at all. A hate speech is offensive. But no ones rights are violated. What right is violated?
Confused wrote:Certain words can't be used on public radios and televisions because of their offensive nature. Yet freedom of religion seems to be able to get a free pass. How is this right? When do we draw the line? Where is the line?
Really, how many fines do you think Howard Stern has gotten from the media police for his choice of words? How many songs have words edited out when played on the radio? Yet a preacher can get on the radio and condemn homosexuals to hell and it is protected by the freedom of religion.twobitsmedia wrote: I am not sure there is a definite line on anything in regards to speech. Don Imus will probably tell you that and so would Howard Stern. And neither of them are religious, or at least not very. So i do not think religion is getting any free pass.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
Re: Freedom of Religion
Post #6I don't understand what "human rights" has to do this. If I am offended, my "rights" have not been violated. The shirt expresses a religious viewpoint from a christian perspective. Why should that bother someone who is Islamic if they do not believe in christianity? It's like telling an athiest to go to hell. Big deal, they dont believe in it, so why should they care? And as far as being in a public school...heaven forbid that diversity of ideas and thoughts would be presented in a school of all places.....Confused wrote:The point is the t-shirt is being worn in a public school. A place in which all children should be free to gain an education without being subjected to a hostile or condemning environment. A child adopted by a gay couple could quite easily have issues here. An islamic child as well. The views express hatred of homosexuals, abortionists, and islamics by essentially condemning them or their beliefs. It has nothing to do with thought police. It is directly related to human rights.twobitsmedia wrote:I guess I don't see the shirt as offensive. It is stating a religious viewpoint. If it said "I hate homosexuals and islam and abortionists" than it would be clear hate speech. The problem that I see with things like this is that we start going into the realm of "thought police." It becomes a matter of not what we do, but what someone thinks we did. And if what someone thinks we did, rather than what we meant or actually did, starts to become more prevalent in the courts...we are ALL in trouble. The other problem with a lot of this kind of stuff is that I do not believe at all that the Constitution was designed to protect us from being offended. Once upon a time, if you disagreed you could just flip him off and go your own way. Now you can get a lawyer and they can get a lawyer because they were offended because you flipped them off.
I still do not see the "humans rights" issue. You mean we have a "human right" to not be offended also?This is a matter of what the t-shirt represented blatantly. Not what someone thought it might represent. Your views on the consititution may be correct. But that is irrelevant. This isn't about being offended. It is about human rights.
Even if it were condemnation, which I am not saying it is or isn't, but let's say it is. It then becomes offensive. And then we are back to what is the "rights" violation?The right to attend school without being subjected to condemnation.
I, personally, believe the Bible condemns abortion. That is not the same thing as me saying "I hate abortionists." And it would not be true.
I would not care. That's why I have an "on" and "off" button. No one forces me to have a TV.Furthermore, how would you feel if PBS broadcasted pornography at 2:00 in the afternoon?
A "hate speech", or an "I disagree with this position" speech? When does it become a hate speech? When someone is offended? When someone "thinks" it is a hate speech?If that hate speech is being given at the local high school pep rally, do you feel the same? If the hate speech is being given where you work, does this not create a hostile work environment? If the hate speech is being given by a 12 year old as his essay on morality to the entire 6th grade class, is it a violation of the right to an education free of hostility?
I haven't heard of an issue where a preacher is getting on the radio and condemning homosexuality. Fred Phelps, a self-proclaimed baptist from Topeka, is blatantly hateful towards homosexuals. But Kansas is not able to stop him because of issues of free speech. He is offensive. Very offensive. But hasn't really violated anyone human rights that I know of.Really, how many fines do you think Howard Stern has gotten from the media police for his choice of words? How many songs have words edited out when played on the radio? Yet a preacher can get on the radio and condemn homosexuals to hell and it is protected by the freedom of religion.
Re: Freedom of Religion
Post #7Once again, you may not agree with the way the constitution is applied, but it is the reality. By constitution, my child has a right to an education free of persecution. You want schools to allow diversity. Great. But is an elementary or middle school the right starting place for this type? Children are impressionable, they don't know what they believe yet. Should the adopted child of a homosexual couple have to read that his parents are committing sin at school? Regardless, the fact is that if this was an issue in which the t-shirt stated "Christians are delusional, low self esteem individuals who worship a myth and require fantasy to keep them from doing wrong" it would be considered a hate t-shirt. Period. The school would have every right to tell the child not to wear it. Why, because even if you wouldn't be offended by it or see it as a hate speech (which I do find commendable of you) some would. The shirt would trump their right to an education in a non-hostile environment. However, by expressing freedom of religion, this boys t-shirt was perfectly acceptable.twobitsmedia wrote:I don't understand what "human rights" has to do this. If I am offended, my "rights" have not been violated. The shirt expresses a religious viewpoint from a christian perspective. Why should that bother someone who is Islamic if they do not believe in christianity? It's like telling an athiest to go to hell. Big deal, they dont believe in it, so why should they care? And as far as being in a public school...heaven forbid that diversity of ideas and thoughts would be presented in a school of all places.....Confused wrote:The point is the t-shirt is being worn in a public school. A place in which all children should be free to gain an education without being subjected to a hostile or condemning environment. A child adopted by a gay couple could quite easily have issues here. An islamic child as well. The views express hatred of homosexuals, abortionists, and islamics by essentially condemning them or their beliefs. It has nothing to do with thought police. It is directly related to human rights.twobitsmedia wrote:I guess I don't see the shirt as offensive. It is stating a religious viewpoint. If it said "I hate homosexuals and islam and abortionists" than it would be clear hate speech. The problem that I see with things like this is that we start going into the realm of "thought police." It becomes a matter of not what we do, but what someone thinks we did. And if what someone thinks we did, rather than what we meant or actually did, starts to become more prevalent in the courts...we are ALL in trouble. The other problem with a lot of this kind of stuff is that I do not believe at all that the Constitution was designed to protect us from being offended. Once upon a time, if you disagreed you could just flip him off and go your own way. Now you can get a lawyer and they can get a lawyer because they were offended because you flipped them off.
I still do not see the "humans rights" issue. You mean we have a "human right" to not be offended also?This is a matter of what the t-shirt represented blatantly. Not what someone thought it might represent. Your views on the consititution may be correct. But that is irrelevant. This isn't about being offended. It is about human rights.
Even if it were condemnation, which I am not saying it is or isn't, but let's say it is. It then becomes offensive. And then we are back to what is the "rights" violation?The right to attend school without being subjected to condemnation.
I, personally, believe the Bible condemns abortion. That is not the same thing as me saying "I hate abortionists." And it would not be true.
I would not care. That's why I have an "on" and "off" button. No one forces me to have a TV.Furthermore, how would you feel if PBS broadcasted pornography at 2:00 in the afternoon?
A "hate speech", or an "I disagree with this position" speech? When does it become a hate speech? When someone is offended? When someone "thinks" it is a hate speech?If that hate speech is being given at the local high school pep rally, do you feel the same? If the hate speech is being given where you work, does this not create a hostile work environment? If the hate speech is being given by a 12 year old as his essay on morality to the entire 6th grade class, is it a violation of the right to an education free of hostility?
I haven't heard of an issue where a preacher is getting on the radio and condemning homosexuality. Fred Phelps, a self-proclaimed baptist from Topeka, is blatantly hateful towards homosexuals. But Kansas is not able to stop him because of issues of free speech. He is offensive. Very offensive. But hasn't really violated anyone human rights that I know of.Really, how many fines do you think Howard Stern has gotten from the media police for his choice of words? How many songs have words edited out when played on the radio? Yet a preacher can get on the radio and condemn homosexuals to hell and it is protected by the freedom of religion.
I find your open minded view quite refreshing to be honest. Few that I know would agree with you. Especially about the porn at 2:00 in the afternoon on PBS. But reality is that based on the application of the constitution and all its amendments, one persons right to say something doesn't trump another persons right not to have to hear it in public. Yet expressing the view of Christianity on a t-shirt in elementary school that despite whether or not you might find it offensive, others would, is acceptable. Wearing a t-shirt that say "F**K isn't. That is reality.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
Re: Freedom of Religion
Post #8I would still have to go back on the idea that I don't think the Constitution protects a person from being persecuted. It really was designed more to affirm positions rather than negate them. It protects free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to bear arms, freedom to vote, etc. There really is not any amendment, as far as I can see, that suggests one is to be protected from persecution. They are to be protected if someone's free speech, freedom or religion, ability to bear arms, etc is violated. And in that sense, one might consider that "persecution" should it happen. But, then again, the protections are from the government by the government. It's moreless designed to protect us from the government, rather than from each other. I, personally, do not think the forefathers were able to even guess that we would eventually become this country of "litigation" and "lawyers" that it has become....which may have initially came out of constitutional interpretation as a basis for law....but has since grown into its own disfigured entity we refer to as the "justice system."Confused wrote:
Once again, you may not agree with the way the constitution is applied, but it is the reality. By constitution, my child has a right to an education free of persecution.
I agree with this to an extent. They do not know what to believe yet. And I think that is where the parents have to play an active roll. I think it is wrong, though, to remove the "ideas" from schools. they will have a rude awakening later on when they realize they were shielded from reality in the name of "education." Removing the ideas, in my opinion, the the schools usurping parental authority. The schools, by doing that, teach the child through example it is wrong. That is not their job. The battle over evolution vs creationism has magnified some of that for me. "Evolution" is a real theory. Not one I subscribe to. But it is a reality of most communities. But, so is Creationism. By the school sanctioning evolution and throwing out creationism the schools are deciding best for the kids, usurping parental authority, and, once again, throwing out the exchange of ideas. Teach them both as theories. But don' t throw one out just because the school board said so. Will someone be offended by one or the other? Probably. The schools are going to have to stand up say "who cares" at some point rather than deciding who they would rather offend less.You want schools to allow diversity. Great. But is an elementary or middle school the right starting place for this type? Children are impressionable, they don't know what they believe yet.
As I said, it is the parents responsibility to straighten out the kid with his or her beliefs. The shirt doesn't name anyone by name.Should the adopted child of a homosexual couple have to read that his parents are committing sin at school?
I would consider the shirt offensive, but I don't think I can call it hateful per se. It's a tenant of athiesm and free speech. I think it would encourage discussion about the issue. And then once again, the parents need to play a role.Regardless, the fact is that if this was an issue in which the t-shirt stated "Christians are delusional, low self esteem individuals who worship a myth and require fantasy to keep them from doing wrong" it would be considered a hate t-shirt. Period.
"Right?" Only if, IMO, the school has a dress code uniform. And I don't mean the intelligence insulting kind of dress codes that schools create nowadays that say "don't wear something that says this or that," etc, but a real uniform. Granted, there are standards of decency, as one would probably not allow pornographic material but those are established by communities and are the community norm. By banning the shirts mentioned the impression is that Christians or athiests are not normal. And that would not be true. they are probably both a very active part of the community.The school would have every right to tell the child not to wear it.
But has it become a "hostile " environment? Someone gets their feelings hurt and it is a hostile environment? Granted, kids go through a lot of emotions. but did it really get hostile? The other issue about this is the media culture we live in. This could have been an isolated incident between a few kids and some class mates at a school. These are kids who may have grown up together. They may even share the same beliefs, or challenge each others "logic" on playground discussions daily. The story gets leaked to the press, it goes national...and suddenly there is a "hostile environment." There are so many factors we do not hear about in these cases.Why, because even if you wouldn't be offended by it or see it as a hate speech (which I do find commendable of you) some would. The shirt would trump their right to an education in a non-hostile environment. However, by expressing freedom of religion, this boys t-shirt was perfectly acceptable.
I have a journalism background, and that may be one reason I lean toward the freedom of speech more than others. But even as a tenant of my faith, I cannot see any Biblical reason to deny freedom of speech and ideas. One who seeks truth is cannot be afraid of ideas. No matter how absurd, or rather, how far out from ones personal viewpoint. You may have a valid point with the issue of the age, and I will have to weigh it more before I say too much more about that.I find your open minded view quite refreshing to be honest. Few that I know would agree with you. Especially about the porn at 2:00 in the afternoon on PBS. But reality is that based on the application of the constitution and all its amendments, one persons right to say something doesn't trump another persons right not to have to hear it in public. Yet expressing the view of Christianity on a t-shirt in elementary school that despite whether or not you might find it offensive, others would, is acceptable. Wearing a t-shirt that say "F**K isn't. That is reality.
Post #9
The screen name should have clued me in. I hate those "duh" moments. I can see where you are coming from in this perspective. I don't think we are necessarily disagreeing. My main problems here are age and double standards. In the first case, I am sorry, but despite the issue of suppressing ideas in school, there are some ideas that need not be addressed in school. I understand what you are trying to say, but when we look at it only in the context of the case mentioned, age and location are very mitigating factors. We need to consider the appropriateness of the idea being expressed. In this case, it is inappropriate to display the ideas of the t-shirt in a public elementary/middle school. I would likely consider inappropriate in high school as well. I would consider a shirt saying sex is fun and orgasms feel wonderful inappropriate as well.twobitsmedia wrote:I have a journalism background
In the second issue: double standards, I have to say that despite what we all believe the forefathers intentions of the constitution was to be, the application of it now is all we can address. In this case, as it is deemed true, such words would be considered judgmental and hate. Discrimination against Islam, homosexuals, and abortionists. Now, yes, it is splitting hairs. The border between offending and discriminating is very blurred. I don't necessarily agree that speech should be limited based on the fear of offending someone. On the reverse side, I also think that one should be able to go to a public domain and not feel as if they are in a hostile environment. Yes, the term hostile is quite subjective and unfortunately, as with many things in the US, we take it to the extreme. However, that is the case. Had these parents sued based on the freedom of speech, they would have lost. Simply because it could be demonstrated that this t-shirt could be seen as a hate speech, which is unconstitutional, despite whether you or I agree with it or not. However, by demonstrating that this t-shirt was merely regurgitating religious doctrine, it was deemed freedom of religion and hence, protected by the constitution. Now, does this not seem to be a double standard? One can say Jews killed God and not be prejudicial and anti-semitic because based on the NT, it could be contended by some denominations of Christianity to be a religious doctrine. But one cannot say blacks should still be slaves without it being hate speech. No t-shirt like that would ever be approved to wear to school.
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
- Cephus
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Redlands, CA
- Been thanked: 2 times
- Contact:
Re: Freedom of Religion
Post #10Unfortunately, I'll bet that if the kid wore a shirt that said "Christianity is evil", he'd be sent home for hate speech.twobitsmedia wrote:I guess I don't see the shirt as offensive. It is stating a religious viewpoint.