My daugher, Emily, the 7 year old, has been pestering me for about a week to buy the book "the Legend of the Candy Cane" It's about how the candy cane can be a symbol for Christ. I figured that they had read it at school or at church or something and she just wanted a copy at home.
Today, she was bothering me again, and I asked her why she wanted it. She said because someone at school asked if she could bring it to read to the class and the teacher told them no, there was a law that said they couldn't read that book at school. Then Emily, 1st grader, says to me "Mommy, are we breaking the law by believing in Jesus?"
Okay, that was just too much for me.
The public schools have planted the idea in my daughter's mind that it is illegal for her to be a Christian. That I cannot accept.
It wouldn't be so bad if they explained it as a separation of church and state issue. But no, they basically have convinced my child that every other religion is okay BUT hers. See, they DID talk about Hanukkah. They DID talk about Kwanzaa, they DID talk about Ramadan. They read a book from the perspective of a muslim boy, that explained the holy month and what it means to fast and everything.
So, everything else is okay, but Christianity is against the law?
Somebody want to explain that to me?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, because it's inexplicable.
You need to arrange a conference with the principle and make it clear in no uncertain terms that this is unacceptable, and that corrections will be made.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Another thing that annoys me is I know it isn't intentional. It isn't some conscious effort on the teacher's part to undermine the beliefs of the kids in the class - I know this teacher, I think very, very highly of her and I happen to know she is a church-going Christian.
No, this is just the effect of the current thinking out there - let's talk about Ramadan and Hanukkah because we need to teach kids to be tolerant - tolerant of everything except Christianity!
I would be willing to bet, in the middle of the Bible belt, in a small town that voted 98% Bush for president, that the vast majority of the kids in that class are Christian.
But their beliefs are the only ones that can't be represented during the holiday season.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
This is of course a very silly policy, unofficial or not, but Muslims and Jews are, in fact, in greater need of tolerance than Christians. Academics punch like sissies.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dag! Will you please stop using 'principle' when you mean 'principal'?! This is the second time in two days! [/Grammar Communist]
About the policy, I agree that consistency is required. Clearly, there is no particular need to have Ramadan etc in schools, either.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I don't think they should take education about Muslim beliefs out of school; they should just put education about Christian beliefs in.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
It's the same mindset that's making it acceptable to say all manner of horrible things about men, while women cannot be mocked at all. It's the same mindset that's made it so racial humor--mocking all races, by the way--is perfectly acceptable from a comedian who is "ethnic", but the moment a white person starts to make a joke about any ethnicity but his own, he is tarred and feathered, metaphorically speaking.
Basically, white Christian men have completely dominated society for so long that, now that non-whites, non-Christians, and non-men are finally (within the past few decades) gaining some of the respect and recognition they deserve, some people take it too far and have created a full-scale backlash. So now anyone who has any one of those three traits is in for a rough time for awhile.
Do I agree with it? No. I think the whole thing is stupid. And I think people are misunderstanding what "separation of church and state" means. But I predict the whole PC thing will blow over eventually. It seems like some nutjob manages to come up with a ridiculous new application of the PC dogma on a pretty regular basis, which makes it look like things are always getting worse. But at least among the people I talk to, the whole movement has long since overstayed its welcome already. I think that society as a whole is starting to get thoroughly sick of the whole thing, and sooner or later (I'm praying for "sooner", myself), the whole thing will start to fade and shrink.
(Or, alternatively, there could be a backlash against the PC folks, and minorities could start getting put under the boot again in retaliation. But I somewhat doubt it. I like to think that we've gone beyond that point anyway. At least, I desperately hope we have.)
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
You know, my son's teacher spent the entire hour on why Santa is an impossibility from a physics point of view. And how Rudolph's nose couldn't possibly light the way.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
King of Men, could you please stop using communist when you mean fascist?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Belle, I find it funny (in an ironic more than humorous sense) that this is happening in your fairly conservative area, while in my (quite liberal) area, my son is being given lines in a Christmas show. (He's in public school.) Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Edit: This post is responding to the "grammar communist" thing, not the "conservative area" thing. You may now continue reading the post.
Good point. Theoretically, a grammar communist would be someone who feels that we should all have an equal share in grammatical issues, and that therefore no person would have the right to dictate another person's grammar.
Well, that would be the theory. In reality, we'd get something more like grammar Stalinism, in which one person dictated the grammar for everyone. It would be different from grammar fascism only in its ostensive philosophy. In reality, it would be the same.
[lexical fascist] (And the use of "principle" when "principal" is meant isn't a grammatical error anyway--it's a lexical error. Dag's sentence was still grammatically correct, even though his use of the wrong word rendered the meaning nonsensical.) [/lexical fascist]
[ December 18, 2004, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Comrade Nato, I observe that you have not previously been exposed to the Grammar Communist Party. We are much like Grammar Nazis (who are not fascists, by the way), but are distinguished by our much cooler hats, the fact that we won the war, and our tendency to call people 'comrade'.
In other words, 'Grammar Communist' is a joke. You are now permitted to laugh. Anybody who does not laugh will be sent to Siberia.
Edit : And I use 'Grammar' to encompass errors including, but not limited to, spelling, grammar, and vocabulary. I suppose I could call it the 'Orthography Communist Party,' or something, but I'd lose the analogy to Grammar Nazi.
[ December 18, 2004, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
<--Already lives in Alaska, and therefore doesn't really fear Siberia all that much.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
It's ok to take shots at whites, Christians and men because we're the ones with all the power. We can afford to take some punishment - because let's face it, white christian males run the country. Suck it up and let people make fun of you.
However, excluding Christmas imagery while including other types of imagery is stupid, and isn't it illegal?
Remember the Apostle Paul. When he was illegally whipped, he didn't moan and whine about being oppressed - he took legal action, and receieved satisfaction. So go for it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We can afford to take some punishment - because let's face it, white christian males run the country.
I hate this type of argument. Some white Christian males run the country.
I'm not one of them. I doubt you are.
Dagonee
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Dag, have you ever been threatened on the basis of being a male? I haven't. Have you ever lost anything becase you're white? I haven't.
While Christians might be given a hard time occasionally, they are a major political force. And just like your advice said, legal action can take care of any troubles with ease.
I'm not a Christian, but I'm a white male, and I recognize that in the grand scheme of things, that places me near the top of the ladder. It's just the way our society is currently structured.
It's a racist, sexist world we live in, and you and I will rarely personally face the true ugliness of that. So why get upset if we're the butt of a few jokes?
Edited twice 'cause I type bad.
[ December 18, 2004, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Foust ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, how about affirmative action? Hurts men because they are male, right?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*control*
There needs to be middle ground...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Have you ever lost anything becase you're white?
Yes.
But that's besides the point.
You said, "It's OK to take shots at whites, Christians, and men."
And it's not. If it's wrong to take the shots, then it's wrong.
It's really that simple.
Dagonee
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
My thought is that all religions' holidays' should be talked about. I would prefer that our children be taught to have open minds and be concious and educated about eachother's religions.
However, although that's what I'd prefer, here's the fact of the matter: I do not see anyone here jumping up and saying, "Oh, let's talk about Yule now children," or, "Halloween is also called Samhain by some". I am not convinced that I will ever see the day that my own religion is talked about in school, and I do recognize that it makes me a little bitter about the whole PC thing. (Okay, Grammar Communists...go! I'm sure I did all sort of things wrong in the above sentences.)
Since this is the case and the child I raise will be brought up a different religion than (probably) a majority of the children in whatever school my child ends up in, I would prefer that religion not be talked about at all in school. I feel it alienates children who do not follow main-stream religions. I know that I was alienated for it, even though I was not raised Wiccan (I was raised in a cult, for those of you who have ever heard of The Way Interational), and it was extremely confusing and unnecessary.
It comes down to this-I would love to see all religions talked about, but the reality is that they won't. I would rather sacrifice my child's knowledge about other cultures than to have my child singled out because of his/her own background. I can teach my child tolerance if public schools will not.
[ December 18, 2004, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: BelladonnaOrchid ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Another reason to support some form of school choice.
Dagonee
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You know, when I was in second grade, a little bit of hard work by me, my family, and a few other jewish families in the town, got our public school to figure out that they were excluding us. Just a small thought...
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
There does not need to be a middle ground, there needs to be open spit in the eye defiance and long lines of parents leaving with their kids to go to private school. In our area there are two catholic schools within ten miles. Bet your life the school district does not pull this crap here. It is the ACLU suing the schools as a soft target with big dollars, using our tax dollars I might add, and schools bending over to avoid costly litigation. We do not need to support these greedy lawyers feeding like hogs at the public trough and destroying our values! Its time we changed the laws, the lawyers and the judges to reflect our values!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Now why is it that I sympathize and agree with Belle and others here that Christianity ought not to be singled out for exclusion from schools, but reading Jar Head's posts makes me want to contribute to the ACLU?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Verily:
quote:Basically, white Christian men have completely dominated society for so long that, now that non-whites, non-Christians, and non-men are finally (within the past few decades) gaining some of the respect and recognition they deserve, some people take it too far and have created a full-scale backlash. So now anyone who has any one of those three traits is in for a rough time for awhile.
White Christian men are in for a rough time? Like, compared to black Satanist women? Really?
Belladonna:
quote:I would rather sacrifice my child's knowledge about other cultures than to have my child singled out because of his/her own background. I can teach my child tolerance if public schools will not.
Will you teach everyone else's children as well?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Belle, does "The Legend of the Candy Cane" actually speak of Christ and Christianity as if both were facts? Somehow I doubt that the Jewish, Muslim, and Kwanzaa (areligious in the first place) discussions did so.
It is likely, in other words, that "The Legend of the Candy Cane" would be "illegal" in a way that merely having someone explain what Hanukah is would not. In fact, that it is even necessary for someone to come in to explain Ramadan is a pretty good example of the problem; has the school had to invite someone in to explain what Christmas is?
[ December 19, 2004, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:White Christian men are in for a rough time? Like, compared to black Satanist women? Really?
I'd respond to that, but I honestly have no idea what your point is.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
But the story of the Muslim boy likely presented his belief as what he holds to be fact. If the book was read with a disclaimer that said, "Not all people believe this, this is what I believe", would it be okay?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Tom - even were that the case, if they're mentioning the others they should at least mention the existence of Christianity. Even if they assume that the majority of kids already know, there's no reason to be so conspicuous about avoiding it. Mention it, mention the others, and get back to math.
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Because you are a coward who lacks the courage to put the fight where it needs to go. Mamby Pamby sympathy is what evil needs, good people who want to share feelings instead of acting viciously and instantly when they are threatened. Does God want your half hearted lip service? I think it is as worthless as a counterfeit penny.
Go encourage the ACLU to attack the Boy Scouts and the US military and Christianity. We will win in the end with or without you. I heard they even have a list of potential contributers, monitoring charitable contributions and personal wealth to know who to dun. Real concerned about Civil Liberty aren't they! You should fit in with the hypocrites, saying you have faith and stabbing the faithful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"if they're mentioning the others they should at least mention the existence of Christianity."
I would suspect that the schools have already mentioned the existence of Christianity. I agree, however, that it would make more sense to have a day on which a Christian could come in and say "This is what some of us Christians believe," but I suspect that an enormous number of Christians would find that offensive. As it stands, there aren't enough Muslims in most places in this country to object when, say, a Sunni sums up their faith on their behalf; there are enough Baptists to throw a fit if a Catholic starts explaining how good Christians confess regularly.
Jar Head: don't be like that. You aren't always a frother; don't froth now, please.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't have faith. I am not a Christian. I still think Christianity should be mentioned if the others are.
However, if you plan to force Christianity as U.S.-approved to the exclusion of all others, then we can discuss my courage and backbone.
Edited after Tom's post: this is a very emotional and stressful time for people, especially when representations of religion are being presented or blocked. The emergence of "Chrismakkuh" and the enforcement of secular holiday greetings has got to be tough on those who believe that their holy day has been co-opted by the fat guy with reindeer and a Best Buy catalog.
[ December 19, 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Preach the Jihad, Brother Jar Head!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*exercises self control and restraint*
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I'm glad to see that so many of you are getting into the spirit of the Airing of Grievances, but Festivus isn't until the 23rd.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
SERENITY NOW!
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
It isn't a matter of Christianity or else, minority rights, not minority rule. Respecting anothers religion does not mean giving up mine or having my son have his Christmas taken away. The minority religions are welcome to practice their holidays, I will still barbacue porkchops in the backyard weather its Ramadan or not, they have no right to tell the rest of us we cannot have Christmas, with Christ, because they don't believe in it. Too Bad! This is more then 'religion' it is tradition.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strange, and here I thought you were calling Chris evil and saying your Christian God would likely think him worthless. I suppose it could be that you meant any God would think him worthless . . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"the enforcement of secular holiday greetings has got to be tough on those who believe that their holy day has been co-opted by the fat guy with reindeer and a Best Buy catalog"
You mean the pagan Norsemen who originally burned decorated logs around the winter solstice to bring back the sun? Or somebody more recent? Because I'll agree that Norse pagans really do have to put up with a lot of crap.
"The minority religions are welcome to practice their holidays."
It's generous of you to extend them this courtesy. But, oddly, neither do I see anyone preventing you from practicing your holidays. What holiday practice do you consider essential to the expression of your Christian faith that is actually banned by any law? I was not aware that Jesus expected schoolteachers to read books about candy canes to your children, nor that you were incapable of reading those books yourself.
[ December 19, 2004, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't recall anyone here (or anywhere) saying that your Christmas is being taken away. You can enjoy whatever traditions you wish. The question here is how Christmas is represented in schools.
I'm making a prediction for next year. There will be a made-for-TV Christmas movie about this topic. Just like every other Christmas movie the holiday will be threatened, but this time it won't be because of lack of snow or foggy conditions or something cutesy and metaphorical. The movie will be about Christians outraged at the excision of Christ from Christmas in schools, official displays, and public caroling. And in the movie, they'll win. The movie will be wildly controversial and insanely popular, sparking tons of arguments and complaints and support. If this movie has already been made and I missed it, never mind. If someone gets the idea from here, I want a cut.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"You mean the pagan Norsemen who originally burned decorated logs around the winter solstice to bring back the sun? Or somebody more recent? Because I'll agree that Norse pagans really do have to put up with a lot of crap."
I left my statement vague on purpose Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
Yes, who needs such as this? The great 'I do not really give a shit' mass of self indulgence. In the end he will wait for the winners to emerge and jump into that line. Trying to sheepishly blend in with the cheering throng. Better to lose and die then to believe in nothing.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Christmas is a Commercial money grubber. Have you been to the mall recently? Religion my arse.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Better to lose and die then to believe in nothing."
Having met Chris Bridges, I can say with some surety that he is a man who believes in many things, "nothing" not being one of them.
Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
In my School growing up we watched 'Its a Wonderful Life' every year, we saw the 'Greatest Story Ever Told' We sang O'Holy Night and Silent Night in school recitals and the Christmas Band Concert started with What Child is This, and went on to Hark the Herald' and all the rest. It was the happiest time of year for everyone and you think it is cool to take that experience away. It is sad and cynical and reeks of personal indifference.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In this case, I believe strongly that no one should be ashamed of their faith, and that's what was happening to Belle's daughter. That's wrong, and I think the school was going overboard to avoid lawsuits.
Of course, I also don't think the other children should be ashamed of their faiths either, which is why I argue against promotion of any faith at public or non-affiliated private schools. Explanation and acknowledgement, no worries. Promotion, no.
I'm sure it was the happiest time of the year for Christians and for the indifferent who just enjoyed the fellowship. I'm guessing the local Jews weren't quite as jolly. Seriously, I don't care if schools present Christian Christmas material as long as it's not all they present.
[ December 19, 2004, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Verily:
quote:I'd respond to that, but I honestly have no idea what your point is.
My point is that white Christian men are really not in for a very rough time at all.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
quote:WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice today announced that a federal court in Massachusetts held that a public high school violated the free speech rights of students when it suspended them for handing out candy canes with religious messages attached to them.
The students, members of a Bible club at Westfield High School, had been told that they could distribute the candy canes with a "Happy Holidays" message, but forbidden to attach a message containing a prayer and a description of the religious origins of the candy cane. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the one-day suspensions given to the students violated their first amendment rights, and entered a preliminary injunction barring the school from punishing them or enforcing similar speech restrictions against them.
I saw a reference to this on the AP and thought I should bring it up.
Belle - I think you have every right to be mad. It is going too far to highlight every other religion and ban discussion of Christianity. Maybe we should start a group demanding equal rights for Christians.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It is going too far to highlight every other religion and ban discussion of Christianity."
When exactly was discussion of Christianity banned, again? While it's certainly possible that it might have happened, I haven't heard anything of the kind in this thread.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is cool, thanks for the link...I live not 10 min from that schol, and was just there playing pool last night!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
This is that part that Dag will like....
quote:In a 62-page ruling today, the Court held that there was no evidence that the students' distribution of the religious messages with the candy canes was disruptive. The Court held that, "School-age children are compelled by law to attend school, but while there lawfully, they enjoy the right to free personal intercommunication with other students, so long as their communication with other students does not substantially or materially disrupt the operation of the classroom or impinge upon the rights of others."
Ralph Boyd, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice, said, "The Supreme Court, more than thirty years ago, held that students do not shed their free speech rights at the school house gates. Nonetheless, some schools have persisted in the mistaken belief that once students step inside those gates, they enter religion-free zones where expressions of faith are prohibited. This decision sends a strong message that schools may not discriminate against student expression simply because it is religious."
The Court rejected the school's claim that the Constitution's Establishment Clause required them to censor the religious speech of the students, holding that while school-sponsored religious speech is forbidden by the Constitution, student religious speech is constitutionally protected. The Court held that "At the heart of the school's argument lies a widely held misconception of constitutional law that has infected our sometimes politically overcorrect society: The Establishment Clause does not apply to private action; it applies only to government action."
The Court also rejected the school's claim that the religious messages could be barred because they might be offensive to non-Christian students. The Court held that by singling out religious messages for censorship, the school had violated "a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment" that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because it might be disagreeable or offensive. The Court said there was no evidence of interference with the orderly operation of the school, and while a few students were uncomfortable with the religious message, "the uncontroverted evidence shows that those students finding the Club's religious message disagreeable merely set the messages aside and enjoyed a minty treat for their troubles."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I believe it was inferred.
"It wouldn't be so bad if they explained it as a separation of church and state issue. But no, they basically have convinced my child that every other religion is okay BUT hers. See, they DID talk about Hanukkah. They DID talk about Kwanzaa, they DID talk about Ramadan. They read a book from the perspective of a muslim boy, that explained the holy month and what it means to fast and everything.
"So, everything else is okay, but Christianity is against the law?"
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Twice this school year in Fort Dodge, Iowa (the town where I work and my kids go to school), people from the Gideon Society have handed out Bibles to middle school kids after school. They are allowed to offer the Bibles to the kids as long as they stay off school property and don't force the kids to take the Bibles.
That's a far cry from not allowing kids to talk about Christianity at all.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I think that could be the case I read about, unless there is another one recently.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Kwea. That is the part I like. You know me so well.
Two things of note here:
1.) a 62-page District Court decision is very rare. This judge is expecting to be appealed and is expecting to be upheld when it is. If it's appealed, it will likely win at the Circuit level. If it does, SCOTUS likely won't hear it. If Circuit overturns, expect a SCOTUS decision 6-3 or 7-2.
2.) A policy based on the content of speech is almost always problematic. It creates fuzzy line-drawing rules that guarantee some over- and under- inclusiveness (witness the continuing wrangling over "offensive" and "obsecene" speech). Courts are likely to be unsympathetic.
Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how schools can ban T-shirts calling for marijuana legalization. A ban on T-shirts advocating illegal activities may be slightly better, but I'm still skeptical.
Dagonee
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
quote: Will you teach everyone else's children as well?
ae-in answer to your question: No, I will not teach everyone else's children tolerance. However, if a school won't teach my own child a merit that I find valuable, I will teach it to my child myself.
My arguement was to either way insure that my child, when I have one, does not get singled out because of reasons of faith. I was unaware that was too much to ask, since that's what it seemed that Belle wanted for her daughter as well. Belle just seems to lean towards one side of the issue, as to where I will be happy either way. Neither of us seem happy with the middle ground, or maybe I'm jumping to conclusions. If I am, please correct me.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Why would they talk about Ramadan now? It's in October.
I also don't get why anyone lumps Kwanzza in with Christmas and Hanukkah. It's a secular, cultural holiday. I suppose it is meant to be somewhat spiritual, but it is my understanding that it is not religious, pre se.
Belle, are you sure that this is the school's policy? It sounds to me that it might be the teacher doing some interpreting. Has the class done anything else for the holiday season and excluded Christmas (like making paper Hanukkah menorahs and Kwanzza mats (Mkekas), but not Christmas trees or Santas)? If it is the school's policy, I think that the teacher might have explained it better, rather than just tell a first grader that reading her Christmas book in class is against that law.
It's ridiculous to exclude Christmas if you're going to be teaching a unit on December holidays. I think that a call to the teacher would be appropriate in this case. Maybe it's a misunderstanding.
This is precisely why I think that ALL religious holidays should be kept entirely out of public schools. Some child is always going to be hurt. As the only Jewish child going to public school in rural Georgia, Christmas was a very hard time for me. At best, I felt like an outsider. Let me share a comment that was made to me when I was a first grader, to illustrate the worst case: "Kira doesn't celebrate Christmas because it's Jesus's birthday and the Jews killed Jesus. That's why all Jews go to hell." You can guess what that led to - my classmates asking me why I killed Jesus and is that why Santa hates me and wouldn't be bringing me any presents. I see how hard it is for my Hebrew school students and I'm worried about what will happen if I choose to send my children to public schools.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm sorry, GHAD! My crap just gets everywhere, I know.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
They didn't talk about Ramadan now, Mrs. M - they talked about in October.
I e-mailed Lindsay (the teacher) and asked her what was said exactly. Not confrontationally - like I said I really like this teacher. Then I checked what she said with Emily, by asking Emily to tell me everything she remembered. Their stories coincide, which is a miracle since it's not unusual for a seven year old to get things mixed up - although it would be with Emily, since she is a very blunt, very exacting child.
It came up when they were making a paper candy cane - you know, by gluing red and white tissue paper on a construction paper cutout. One child mentioned the book (which I have never read, myself.) Lindsay said they couldn't bring it to school and read it. When the kid said she didn't understand, Lindsay said she knew it was confusing and that she (Lindsay) thought it was sad, too.
Then Emily pressed the issue a little, asking Lindsay why (the exacting child of mine wants to know the reason why it's sad - no surprise) and Lindsay said it was a law. That was where the discussion ended.
As I knew, no one tried to tell my daugher it was wrong to be a Christian - I am not upset at any overt action, I'm upset at how the current thinking in the school system of "Let's make sure we don't offend anyone by talking about Jesus!" has caused my daughter to come to the conclusion there must be something wrong with our beliefs.
No child in America should ever feel their religion must be illegal or wrong for them to believe - while the government shouldn't endorse any particular religion, it also shouldn't forbid the mention of only one in particular which it going to naturally lead to the conclusion that Emily drew.
quote:Muslims and Jews are, in fact, in greater need of tolerance than Christians.
No. tolerance by its very nature is something that should be extended to ALL people. My child deserves no less respect and tolerance of her faith than any Muslim or Jewish child. Just because her faith is in the majority does not mean it should get less respect, or that the schools should be teaching that it deserves less tolerance than others.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Thanks to whoever posted the Snopes article, debunking the ridiculous Candy Cane myth. A local church was passing pamphlets with the story on it during our town's Christmas parade. I was pretty sure it was bunk when I read it (the whole 'J' for Jesus is what gives it away); glad to see my instincts were on spot.
Sorry, this is one of my pet peeves-- if you're going to engage in mythology, make sure you're telling the truth.
Rivka-- your son is getting lines in a Christmas play? Like with sheep and oxen and a stable and everything?
That's totally wrong.
I didn't even get one line, as cow #3, and I'm Christian. Guess Jews are more acceptable to the folks in power than Mormons.
Harrumph!
[ December 20, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Mrs. M, I didn't address the rest of your post.
Certainly the statement said to you as a kid was a hurtful one, but was it said by a teacher or a student? Because, as the decision quoted above shows, we cannot forbid the religious speech of students between themselves at school. If it were a teacher, that's a different story.
If I were a teacher and heard that discussion, I would tell the children to stop, and tell them that statements like that are hurtful, and that no one should be making fun of or judging what other people believe. If the kids then asked me "But Mrs. Ward, is it true the Jews killed Jesus?" I'd then tell them that now was not the right place and time for those discussions, and please turn to chapter 2 in your math book.
That's all I want the school to do - don't ignore their questions, or make a big point of "I can't talk about that, it's against the law" just tell them that there is a time and place to talk about certain things, encourage them to take questions to their parents and/or house of worship, while at the same time reinforcing that respect for our fellow students includes not ridiculing them or hurting their feelings by making fun of what they believe.
I don't think it's my place (thinking like a future educator here) to tell them one belief is wrong or right. I don't think it would be right for me to sit down and say "Now, children, the Jews didn't kill Jesus, not really. He died willingly for our sins." That's imposing my beliefs on them. That conversation should be had between parents and kids or Sunday School teachers and kids, not between a teacher in a public school and kids.
In the case of what happened to you, the teacher should stop the line of questioning, because it's hurtful to the Jewish student, but not offer up any theological comments, or in any way seem to be defending either Judaism or Christianity. Does that make sense? And do the teachers here agree with my interpretation of what the role of a teacher in that situation should be?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: All O'Hara wanted to know was what common-sense solution I might apply. Or, as he put it, "just how freely can we celebrate Christmas in America without being hamstrung by . . . the dogmatic religionists on one side or militant secularists on the other?
"To be afraid of presenting glorious church music in public auditoriums is outrageous," he said. "After all, so much of this music and tradition has become the property of the entire society."
I put the matter to Kevin Hasson, chairman of the Becket Fund, a nonpartisan interfaith public interest law firm that defends the "free expression of all religious traditions." Hasson's response will warm O'Hara's heart.
"Art has always entered religion," he said, noting that both have become a part of our culture. "Who would take Michelangelo's 'David' out of the repertoire of publicly displayed sculpture? Who would excise 'Fiddler' from the drama repertoire, or leave Dante out of the literary repertoire? These things, however religious in their symbolism, are part of our culture, the psychological space in which we live and which includes not just art and music but also architecture, literature and manners. They are part of the common culture."
But surely, I said, some of these expressions -- Christmas carols? -- are not held in common by all of us.
"In a pluralistic society," Hasson said, "there are very few things everybody holds in common -- except the idea that we ought to respect what we don't hold in common."
Sometimes we know that. Which is why we allow space for Black History Month and why no one -- so far as Hasson knows -- has sued to enjoin the celebration of St. Patrick's Day as an incipient white-supremacy plot.
But isn't religion different?
Hasson thinks we've redefined the constitutional requirement of government neutrality toward religion to mean government opposition to religion. "For government to participate in the culture across the board -- proclaiming 'Catfish Day' or 'National Jukebox Week,' for instance -- but to excise religion says something very profound about religion."
He has some sympathy for the South Orange/Maplewood school board's efforts to parse out what is reasonably permissible, but he thinks it may be more productive to start at the other end -- to examine what options government really has when it comes to religion and public life. He thinks there are only three: to censor religion out of the culture entirely, which is clearly impossible; to choose a religion, which is unconstitutional, unethical and profoundly unwise; or to welcome all religion to the public square. If those are truly the options, the choice is obvious.
And not just to Hasson and O'Hara.
Jehiel Orenstein, a South Orange rabbi, recently preached a sermon in which he urged the school board to rethink its anti-carol policy.
"I think the best thing is to keep religion out of the public school system," he said, according to the New York Times. "But I love music, and I guess this comes down to what we call sachel, which means good old-fashioned common sense."
The essential element in this is that religion is part of culture, and much of our culture cannot be adequately examined without including some religious elements.
It doesn't really help us decide where to draw the line, but it makes it pretty clear why both utter exclusion and unconsidered inclusion are both problematic.
Dagonee
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Not entirely relevant to this particular thread, but I've been noticing something in the US recently. Over the last couple of years, I've seen countless examples of fundamentalist Christians taking great offense at the thought that people from other faiths sometimes worry about being on the receiving end of discrimination or worse.
When Passion of the Christ came out, plenty of churchgoers were IRATE that Jews were concerned it might spark anti-semitism. Many felt it was a personal attack against them, and that the mere thought that any Christian might react that way deserved to be shut down.
When there was that whole issue with the pledge of allegiance containing the phrase "under God", I saw plenty of outcries against the godless left-wingers who were out to destroy Christianity.
And every year that I've been at Hatrack, there has been at least one heated discussion about whether or not it's polite to say "Merry Christmas" to someone you don't know is Christian. Usually, at least one person steps in to say that anyone who complains about being wished a Merry Christmas is a soul-sucking grinch who is attacking Christian traditions.
This year, it's even more heated, with people like Bill O'Reilly saying that anyone who doesn't want Christmas shoved in their face is Un-American, and should just go back to Israel.
It makes me wonder. Are Christian fundamentalists in this country working themselves into a frenzy against others who don't share their beliefs, under the banner of victimization? It's one thing when a small minority feels it's being mistreated. It's entirely different when the vast majority, who happen to control the administration of the government, feel that they are under attack. Will they feel the need to defend themselves? How?
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Belle:
quote:No. tolerance by its very nature is something that should be extended to ALL people. My child deserves no less respect and tolerance of her faith than any Muslim or Jewish child. Just because her faith is in the majority does not mean it should get less respect, or that the schools should be teaching that it deserves less tolerance than others.
Muslims and Jews deserve tolerance just as much, but need it more.
Like I said, this tendency to emphasise education on Muslim and Jewish culture while maintaining silence on Christianity is a bad and unfair mistake, but it's an understandable mistake. You're making it sound like it's arbitrary nonsense with no reason behind it, when in fact it's overextrapolation of a very sensible idea. Of course they're pushing tolerance of Muslims and Jews--Muslims and Jews are often victims of intolerance. Of course they're nervous about having Christianity discussed in schools--perhaps they're afraid of things like this. (I'm not trying to draw a cause/effect relationship; I just mean that Christianity has a past and ongoing association with interference in the curriculum in a way Islam and Judaism don't.)
I don't disagree that Christianity deserves equal representation in principle, and that's not a modifier meant to weaken the statement--I am strongly, strongly about principle. But representation and exposure are more crucial for Islam and Judaism in fact.
[ December 20, 2004, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*wondered the same thing and had thoughts on that...*
When I worked at an elemantary school in Boston we couldn't mention Halloween, it had to be called Scary Day or something and no mentioning Christmas either, I don't understand that concept...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
So, liberals don't even pass on the Libspeak to card carrying members?
Get organized-- the truckers could do it, so can you folks.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Rivka-- your son is getting lines in a Christmas play? Like with sheep and oxen and a stable and everything?
No, Scott, that would have been a Christmas pageant, neh? (And if that had been the case, I absolutely would have insisted that my child not be in it. Nor would I have been happy that a public school was putting it on. But I digress.)
This was "Christmas Around the World," and involved how Christmas is celebrated in different countries. *shrug* Nothing explicitly religious, per SE. So I let it be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Christianity rarely meets serious intolerance (except perhaps in academia).
I'm not sure what definition of "academia" you're using. If it includes any educational setting, then the situations under discussion here are within academia. Since you admit they might meet serious intolerance in academia, then they would need the same protection.
If, as seems more likely, you exclude public school settings in your use of "academia," then you are laughably incorrect. Successful lawsuits taking schools to task for discrimination against Christian activities are frequent and represent only a small fraction of the incidents which actually occur.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Then Emily pressed the issue a little, asking Lindsay why (the exacting child of mine wants to know the reason why it's sad - no surprise) and Lindsay said it was a law."
It sounds like Lindsay handled that very poorly, actually.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. Outside the context of all the kids bringing in books to share, it would not be appropriate for that book to be read. So she was substantively correct, but explained it poorly.
I think training in both aspects is needed, because it sounds like this teacher was trying to do the right thing.
Belle, you should be proud of your daughter for not wanting to accept blanket, unexplained pronouncements, and you should be glad that she asked the question so you could explain and talk to the teacher.
Dagonee
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Dagonee:
quote:I'm not sure what definition of "academia" you're using. If it includes any educational setting
It pretty obviously doesn't.
quote:If, as seems more likely, you exclude public school settings in your use of "academia," then you are laughably incorrect. Successful lawsuits taking schools to task for discrimination against Christian activities are frequent and represent only a small fraction of the incidents which actually occur.
1) I would like to see some numbers on that. I would also like to compare how frequent such Christian activities, whatever they may be, are compared to the equivalent activities of other religions.
2) I was thinking more in terms of student-on-student discrimination, since the context of the discussion is the promotion of tolerance among the student population (and besides, it has rather more of an impact on the young than administrative policy).
[ December 20, 2004, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think one of the (rare) upshots of Bush getting reelected is that there's a better chance that the Supreme Court will clarify the first amendment in coming years - so that it is not interpretted in a way that is opposite to what it actually is supposed to be doing.
Preventing a child from coming to school and reading a Christian book of their own should be interpretted as a violation of the child's right to exercise her religion. If children normally didn't get to read their own books, that is one thing. But if the only reason her book was not allowed is because it was Christian, that's just repression of religion.
I think it's a far stretch to try to suggest the opposite - that by allowing one of their classmates to read a Christian book (even when other religious book reading would be equally allowed) the government is forcing them to become Christians. If she had brought the book to school, would the other students have come home thinking their religion was bad or inferior? Unless it was a hateful book attacking other religions, I can't see that happening. Yet, many people (especially in schools) do interpret it that way. This needs to be corrected.
The curious thing is that, at least in my school district, they used to REQUIRE us to read religious books. The Bible was a required text in high school. We also read Sidhartha. And now I know even young kids are required to read the His Dark Materials books, which is blatantly pro-atheist and anti-Christian. If these things are allowable, why isn't it allowable to bring in other books?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Many felt it was a personal attack against them, and that the mere thought that any Christian might react that way deserved to be shut down.
Well, it WAS a personal attack - Christian teaching does not teach that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ, and insinuating that Christians are so ill-informed and reactionary that they would go out and beat up Jews based on a movie was insulting.
quote:It's one thing when a small minority feels it's being mistreated. It's entirely different when the vast majority, who happen to control the administration of the government, feel that they are under attack. Will they feel the need to defend themselves? How?
I don't like the tone of this question, but maybe I'm just reading it wrong. My first reaction, is that you are saying that because Christians are in the majority, they can't feel that they are being mistreated. Just because you're in the majority doesn't mean you can't be discriminated against.
And, yes, many Christians do feel we're under attack, and have major problems with judicial activism.
When our kids think the may be breaking the law by believing in Christ - can you not understand how we might feel that way?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It pretty obviously doesn't.
I thought I'd cover all the bases, and mentioned that the other possibility was more likely.
quote:1) I would like to see some numbers on that.
I posted a large anecdotal list at Glenn Arnold's request sometime in the last three months or so. It happens a LOT.
quote:I would also like to compare how frequent such Christian activities, whatever they may be, are compared to the equivalent activities of other religions.
That would be interesting, but irrelevant, since serious intolerance isn't made less serious by the existence of more serious intolerance.
I've encountered it 3 times. Once was academic, the magazine case at UVA, and we won big. Once was a classic public forum case where we were ineligible to receive the non-profit rates to rent a city auditorium for a Phill Keaggy concert we hosted to raise money for our magazine. This was blatantly unconstitutional, but we got an offer from a better place before we had to take legal action. The third was an incident of violence in a public school (obviously this was private, not state-sponsored, but it was intolerance).
quote:2) I was thinking more in terms of student-on-student discrimination, since the context of the discussion is the promotion of tolerance among the student population (and besides, it has rather more of an impact on the young than administrative policy).
The existence of private intolerance should not be used to justify discriminatory treatment by public officials.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think one of the (rare) upshots of Bush getting reelected is that there's a better chance that the Supreme Court will clarify the first amendment in coming years - so that it is not interpretted in a way that is opposite to what it actually is supposed to be doing.
Fortunately, the SCOTUS precedents are relatively clear. Most of these cases get settled quickly, more are handled at the District or Circuit level. While there still are gaps for SCOTUS to fill, the problems are more about misunderstanding precedent than the presence of bad precedent.
Dagonee
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:It sounds like Lindsay handled that very poorly, actually.
What would you have had her do differently?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I had the same thought as Tom.
I wouldn't be surprised if Lindsay's frustration (as a Christian) came out in her tone -- children can be very acute about sensing such things.
I imagine one could quite matter-of-factly "don't ignore their questions, or make a big point of "I can't talk about that, it's against the law" just tell them that there is a time and place to talk about certain things, encourage them to take questions to their parents and/or house of worship..."
quote:The public schools have planted the idea in my daughter's mind that it is illegal for her to be a Christian. That I cannot accept.
I don't think the public schools did this -- it sounds like your daughter's conclusion was drawn as a direct response to a comment made by one teacher. Your own take on it would seem much more helpful and appropriate, as well as less confusing.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Belle:
quote:Well, it WAS a personal attack - Christian teaching does not teach that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ, and insinuating that Christians are so ill-informed and reactionary that they would go out and beat up Jews based on a movie was insulting.
Because no such Christians exist or have ever existed?
quote:And, yes, many Christians do feel we're under attack, and have major problems with judicial activism.
What would you count as judicial activism?
Dagonee:
quote:I posted a large anecdotal list at Glenn Arnold's request sometime in the last three months or so. It happens a LOT.
Any idea where I could find it? (Not a snark. Snarking. Whatever.)
quote:That would be interesting, but irrelevant, since serious intolerance isn't made less serious by the existence of more serious intolerance.
Seeing as how seriousness is inherently a subjective measure, yes, the existence of more serious intolerance does make it less serious in practical terms.
I did think better of that claim of mine you're challenging, though ('Christianity rarely meets serious intolerance'), which is why I removed it shortly before you replied. It would be more accurate to say that Christianity rarely meets serious intolerance relative to other religions.
quote:I've encountered it 3 times. Once was academic, the magazine case at UVA, and we won big.
I'm not familiar with this, sorry. Details?
quote:Once was a classic public forum case where we were ineligible to receive the non-profit rates to rent a city auditorium for a Phill Keaggy concert we hosted to raise money for our magazine. This was blatantly unconstitutional, but we got an offer from a better place before we had to take legal action.
The claim I was challenging was 'Successful lawsuits taking schools to task for discrimination against Christian activities are frequent and represent only a small fraction of the incidents which actually occur'. This isn't a lawsuit.
quote:The third was an incident of violence in a public school (obviously this was private, not state-sponsored, but it was intolerance).
This isn't a lawsuit either.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing these as valid examples--they're just not valid example of the scenario you mentioned and that I asked you about.
quote:The existence of private intolerance should not be used to justify discriminatory treatment by public officials.
Who's justifying it? I'm saying it's understandable, which is a very different thing from justifiable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Belle, I think Lindsay expressed inappropriate frustration -- witness her whole "it's sad" comment -- and made no attempt to explain why we might not want to read a book about pro-Christian urban legends to a classroom full of random children, probably because she would like to read such books. And because the only thing preventing her personally from doing it is the law, she offloaded the responsibility for that decision to the government instead of shouldering it as part of the price paid by an inclusionary society.
So the message she sent was "the government doesn't want us to be Christians" -- which is not the case, and which wasted an opportunity to discuss the real reason why the book shouldn't be shared with the class.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Oh, and Belladonna:
quote:in answer to your question: No, I will not teach everyone else's children tolerance. However, if a school won't teach my own child a merit that I find valuable, I will teach it to my child myself.
My arguement was to either way insure that my child, when I have one, does not get singled out because of reasons of faith.
My point is that keeping religion out of schools entirely will contribute to your child facing discrimination in the long term, since you will teach your child that merit but many parents will not or cannot do the same for their own.
IMHO, of course.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Are Christian fundamentalists in this country working themselves into a frenzy against others who don't share their beliefs, under the banner of victimization?
Yes. Many Christians are on the look out for persecution which they believe may mark the end days. Sometimes their outrage is founded, but sometimes it's a product of fear.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Well, it WAS a personal attack - Christian teaching does not teach that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ, and insinuating that Christians are so ill-informed and reactionary that they would go out and beat up Jews based on a movie was insulting."
Erm, the teachings Mel Gibson follows DO teach that Jews are responsible for the death of christ.
"and insinuating that Christians are so ill-informed and reactionary that they would go out and beat up Jews based on a movie was insulting"
Christians have done this hundreds, if not thousands, of times in the past 500 years.
It may be insulting to YOU that Jews were afraid of the reaction that Mel Gibson's movie would create, but there's ample historical evidence that the fear was valid and justified.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Yes. Many Christians are on the look out for persecution which they believe may mark the end days. Sometimes their outrage is founded, but sometimes it's a product of fear.
[Speaking as an outsider, granted,] I think it goes deeper than that. I don't think this is characteristic of Christian fundamentalists as a group, but more of this country in general. Being worked up in outrage has become a mark of virtue rather than a regrettable loss of control. Regrettable because rarely does outrage actually serve to solve problems, just escalate them.
Quiet resolve, reasoned discussion, thoughtful questions and replies, setting example by action, and changing the system in ways that are both well-reasoned and helpful have more effect, and none of these are aided by outrage.
Rage is a pyrrhic fuel.
(This is very much not directed at Belle, who is busy here having a thoughtful discussion on a discussion board. I do not mean this thread by any means, but more of a general trend.)
[ December 20, 2004, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
For those that are curious:
quote:“A high school student dismissed from his school broadcast program for signing off with ’God bless’ is rallying community members to his side. James Lord, a senior at Dupo High School in Belleville, Illinois, was suspended for one month from his daily news broadcast on the school’s closed circuit television after signing off his Dec. 17 broadcast. Lord told his student audience: ‘Have a safe and happy holiday, and God bless.’ School Principal Jonathan Heerboth has said Lord’s comment was inappropriate for public school, the Belleville News-Democrat reported. Lord says he plans to appeal the suspension because he claims it violated his First Amendment rights. Geoffrey Surtees, a lawyer with the Virginia-based American Center for Law and Justice who is representing Lord. Jame’s mother, Beverly Lord, called the school’s decision harsh and a suppression of free speech, the paper said.” (WorldNetDaily. 1/21/04.)
quote:“The Broward County (Florida) School District is being sued in federal court after a student was told she could not distribute an invitation for a meeting at her church to classmates. The lawsuit was filed by John Curran along with his daughter Christine, who took a flyer to school when she was a student at Driftwood Middle School in Hollywood, Florida. The flyer was an invitation to hear a Christian youth speaker at her church. As Christine was heading to class, a teacher saw her handing out the flyers and confiscated the material, claiming school guidelines had not been followed.The suit states that Christine was told by school officials that she could not pass out the invitations. Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel says the school district’s policy is unconstitutional. ‘The school’s policy allows blatant censorship of religious viewpoints,’ said Staver. The legal expert says public school students have the right to distribute religious literature at school, as well as the right to be free from discrimination based upon the content of the literature they are distributing.” (Religion Today. 1/20/04.)
quote:“A Virginia high school student was barred from wearing a shirt with a pro-life message because it violates the school’s policy against profane or obscene language. The shirt says: ‘Abortion is Homicide. You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation. Rock for Life.’ Profane or obscene?! Thomas More Law Center sent a demand letter to school officials insisting that this message could not possibly be considered lewd, vulgar, profane or obscene. The letter emphasized other students at the school were allowed to display various message on their clothing, including an image of a marijuana leaf. The school has ten days to reverse their decision or face a lawsuit.” (WorldNetDaily. 3/12/04)
quote:“Claiming Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ has resulted in ‘hate crimes’ against Jews, a nonprofit organization is seeking online signatures for a petition asking Attorney General John Ashcroft to ‘evaluate possible actions’ against the filmmaker. According to a statement from the Messiah Truth Project Inc., a nonprofit group that states its purpose is to ‘combat the deceptive missionary techniques of evangelical Christian denominations and the Messianic movements,’ says that ‘The Passion through purposeful rewriting of the Christian Gospel mythos has, itself, become an anti-Semitic diatribe.’ The organization claims the movie has caused crimes against Jews, synagogues and Jewish cemeteries throughout the United States.’ The group’s petition says that ‘Gibson’s movie violates state and federal hate crime statutes for the purposeful encouragement of anti-Semitic violence. We implore U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to evaluate action against the perpetrators involved and those responsible for the work itself.’ The Messiah Truth Project has failed to cite specific incidents of violence attributed to a perpetrator who had viewed the film.” (WorldNetDaily. 3/16/04)
Emphasis Mine.
quote:At Pioneer High School, education officials prohibited Betsy Hansen from expressing her biblically based beliefs at what was called a “Homosexuality and Religion” panel.
In addition, Miss Hansen had planned to give a speech on the topic “What Diversity Means to Me.” But school officials balked at the speech, saying that Betsy’s religious view toward homosexuality was a “negative” message and would “water down” the “positive” religious message being conveyed.
Detroit Federal Judge Gerald Rosen’s ruling upheld the right of a Christian student to express her religious beliefs that countered the one-sided information campaign at her high school’s “Diversity Week.”
“This case presents the ironic, and unfortunate, paradox of a public high school celebrating ‘diversity’ by refusing to permit the presentation to students of an ‘unwelcomed’ viewpoint on the topic of homosexuality and religion, while actively promoting the competing view,” Judge Rosen wrote. “This practice of ‘one-way diversity,’ unsettling in itself, was rendered still more troubling – both constitutionally and ethically – by the fact that the approved viewpoint was, in one manifestation, presented to students as religious doctrine by six clerics (some in full garb) quoting from religious scripture. In its other manifestation, it resulted in the censorship by school administrators of a student’s speech about ‘what diversity means to me,’ removing that portion of the speech in which the student described the unapproved viewpoint.”
Judge Rosen ruled that the Ann Arbor Public Schools and several of its employees violated the student’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the equal protection of the law. He also found that school officials violated the Establishment Clause by inviting the pro-homosexual clergy member to hold a panel on “Homosexuality and Religion.” (Newsmax, Dec 2003)
quote: Plano Tx., Dec. 16 /Christian Wire Service/ --The Federal District Court granted the Temporary Restraining Order against Plano Independent School District moments ago in Sherman.
Judge Brown ruled in favor of the parents seeking a temporary restraining order against Plano ISD. The children are now allowed to bring gifts with religious content and red and green napkins without fear of discrimination.
“We are very pleased with Judge Brown’s decision to uphold the Constitution and grant the students the right to express their religious beliefs as they desire,” said Hiram Sasser, Director of Litigation with Liberty Legal Institute.
Earlier today, the Department of Justice announced that it will be launching an investigation.
quote:GREENBELT, Md., Dec. 3 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The Center for Law & Religious Freedom on Monday will ask a Maryland federal court to enforce a higher court ruling requiring the Montgomery County public schools to distribute religious fliers, despite efforts by the school system to continue discriminating against Child Evangelism Fellowship, a religious community group.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in June ruled that the school district is required to distribute CEF informational fliers on the same terms as they distribute fliers of other community groups. In an apparent effort to circumvent the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, Montgomery County Public Schools passed a policy in July that Montgomery County officials claim prevents them from distributing CEF’s meeting announcements. As a result, the school district continues to discriminate against CEF's "Good News Clubs" because of their religious content while distributing informational fliers for numerous other community groups.
On Monday, Judge Peter J. Messitte will hear motions from both sides to determine whether the school district’s alleged attempts to avoid the Fourth Circuit’s ruling still violate the First Amendment, which requires that public schools offer equal access to religious speech. Lawyers for CEF also will argue that the preliminary injunction ordered by Judge Messitte last April, allowing the religious fliers to be distributed, should be made permanent. A permanent injunction would guarantee CEF equal treatment by Montgomery County in gaining access to back to school nights, open houses and bulletin boards used by other community groups
I can get more, if anyone is interested - I found all these references just by a quick google search.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote: Any idea where I could find it? (Not a snark. Snarking. Whatever.)
Here's where I listed several, a little more than halfway down the page. The search results I got back from Lexis were over a thousand, and I picked these 5 from the first page of 20. If the ratio holds, this means there were at least 250. And the search wasn’t exhaustive. But, I have no idea what precise search terms I used, and it took a while, so I can’t duplicate it until after exams are over.
quote:Seeing as how seriousness is inherently a subjective measure, yes, the existence of more serious intolerance does make it less serious in practical terms.
I did think better of that claim of mine you're challenging, though ('Christianity rarely meets serious intolerance'), which is why I removed it shortly before you replied. It would be more accurate to say that Christianity rarely meets serious intolerance relative to other religions.
Possibly. But it’s ironic that apparently a balance can’t be struck within a particular setting.
If you had lexis access you could look up the District court decision, which includes my name in the title.
My name is only in there once (Prince). Here's a hint: If you're participating in a potentially landmark case, get your name in first or you'll be forever remembered as "et al."
I was on the cover of USA Today on the steps of the Supreme Court the day after the decision came down, but that's not available online.
quote:The claim I was challenging was 'Successful lawsuits taking schools to task for discrimination against Christian activities are frequent and represent only a small fraction of the incidents which actually occur'. This isn't a lawsuit.
It is relevant to the existence of claims that could be pursued in court but are not, so it is relevant to my claim you were challenging.
quote:This isn't a lawsuit either.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing these as valid examples--they're just not valid example of the scenario you mentioned and that I asked you about.
Fair enough – this wasn’t a lawsuit situation because the school responded properly. As I said, the second example is highly relevant as a possible, unpursued lawsuit.
quote:Who's justifying it? I'm saying it's understandable, which is a very different thing from justifiable.
OK, fair enough. But that’s makes a lot of intolerance “understandable,” because almost everyone has a credible claim of being subject to intolerance, and almost every group has been intolerant at some point.
Dagonee
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
*replying to the original post -- haven't had time to read the rest of the thread*
Belle, this, in a nutshell, is why my son is no longer in public school. In 2nd Grade, he came home and told us that it was illegal to pray in school and that you couldn't say the word "Jesus". Then in 4th Grade, they used the Chinese Zodiak as part of a lesson. He came home with all kinds of talk about how he was the "Year of the..." and it meant he was this or that and should marry someone who is from the Year of the whatever. I was pretty upset.
The next year he started private school. I'm sorry I didn't do it sooner, and if it's possible, my daughter will never go to public school.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I live in Singapore and Christians in general here, never mind fundamentalists (though Singaporean Christianity is more fundamentalist in flavour overall than even American Christianity), seem to have just as much of a persecution complex. I've attended a fair number of sermons in my time in different places, and rarely did I hear one which didn't, at one point or other, mention how the world conspires to harm the Lord's chosen. Even when I was a Christian I thought that was weird. So you will pardon me for suggesting that there is, in fact, something about Christianity that encourages victimhood.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In 2nd Grade, he came home and told us that it was illegal to pray in school and that you couldn't say the word "Jesus".
Hm. It sounds like a huge chunk of the problem is Christian public school teachers.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Erm, the teachings Mel Gibson follows DO teach that Jews are responsible for the death of christ.
Erm, you're either not familiar with his beliefs or have just not bothered to listen to him talk about it. Gibson had a cameo role in the movie as the hand that nailed Jesus to the cross, precisely because he believes HE is responsible for Jesus' death on the cross. Christianity teaches that the sins of the world are the reason Christ came to the earth and died and Gibson's explanation of what he believes and his intentional placing of himself in a symbolic scene indicate that he does indeed follow those teachings.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"It sounds like a huge chunk of the problem is Christian public school teachers."
?? Explain thyself.
Belle, ae-- MG's dad was apparently involved with some possibly anti-semitic Catholic organization.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Hm. It sounds like a huge chunk of the problem is Christian public school teachers.
That's why I liked the way Belle phrased it so much. Puts the emphasis where it should be.
quote:That's all I want the school to do - don't ignore their questions, or make a big point of "I can't talk about that, it's against the law" just tell them that there is a time and place to talk about certain things, encourage them to take questions to their parents and/or house of worship, while at the same time reinforcing that respect for our fellow students includes not ridiculing them or hurting their feelings by making fun of what they believe.
Of course, the legality of the issue, the fairness and respectfulness to all religions that should be shown, is indeed a matter for discussion.
Discussion amongst adults and teenagers, not young children. Emily's experience is exactly what happens when you don't follow Belle's advice -- discriminating between outlawing a religion and the judicial issue of separation of church and state isn't a level at which most pre-teens can operate.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Then in 4th Grade, they used the Chinese Zodiak as part of a lesson. He came home with all kinds of talk about how he was the "Year of the..." and it meant he was this or that and should marry someone who is from the Year of the whatever. I was pretty upset.
You were upset by that? Why?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Explain thyself."
Because the kind of stories these kids are coming back with to tell their horrified Christian parents are highly unlikely to emerge from the mouths of non-Christian schoolteachers, but rather from the mouths of Christian schoolteachers who do not understand the necessity of the restrictions under which they work.
It's worth noting, for example, that I suspect the Chinese zodiac was permitted only because no one thought for a million years that any of the kids would believe it, much less take it seriously. Is that really the attitude you want the schools to take towards Jesus -- that it's an amusing, quaint, and ultimately irrelevant silly tradition?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Erm, you're either not familiar with his beliefs or have just not bothered to listen to him talk about it."
Belle, I am not talking about his personal beliefs. I am talking about the teachings of the church he belongs to, included in which is that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. This is why I stated that the TEACHINGS he follows, not his personal belief system, which is more murky and less available to us.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Here's a hint: If you're participating in a potentially landmark case, get your name in first or you'll be forever remembered as "et al."
That seems familiar. Do you pull it from somewhere? Maybe America: The Book? Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You have specific references to the doctrine of his church that place the blame for Jesus' death solely on the Jewish people?
Please show them.
And Scott - my father's beliefs are not my own, they don't even come close to my own and I'd hate to be judged for them. I think Gibson deserves the respect of not judging him by what his father believes or what organizations his father belongs to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"Erm, you're either not familiar with his beliefs or have just not bothered to listen to him talk about it."
Belle, I am not talking about his personal beliefs. I am talking about the teachings of the church he belongs to, included in which is that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. This is why I stated that the TEACHINGS he follows, not his personal belief system, which is more murky and less available to us.
In one sense, Paul is right, but it's a very, very incomplete and misleading way to put it.
quote:That seems familiar. Do you pull it from somewhere? Maybe America: The Book?
Nope. All mine. Although I'm flattered by the comparison. Edit: This is a copy and paste from the thread linked above. Maybe you read it there.
Dagonee
[ December 20, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Aha. Most likely.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Dag:
quote:Here's where I listed several, a little more than halfway down the page. The search results I got back from Lexis were over a thousand, and I picked these 5 from the first page of 20. If the ratio holds, this means there were at least 250. And the search wasn’t exhaustive. But, I have no idea what precise search terms I used, and it took a while, so I can’t duplicate it until after exams are over.
The thing is, those look to me like misinterpretations of the law rather than evidence of prejudice per se. Do mosques and Satanic cabals have an easier time booking school facilities, for example? Maybe they do. I don't know.
I'm not saying Christian activites aren't being unfairly blocked. I'm saying that from my admittedly imperfect understanding of the situation, it's nothing much compared to what other religions face.
I don't even live in America, so there's a chance I've got this totally backasswards. But it seems unlikely.
quote:Possibly. But it’s ironic that apparently a balance can’t be struck within a particular setting.
I don't really see how it's ironic. It is unfortunate, though.
quote:Here's a link to SCOTUS's decision: Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995).
If you had lexis access you could look up the District court decision, which includes my name in the title.
My name is only in there once (Prince). Here's a hint: If you're participating in a potentially landmark case, get your name in first or you'll be forever remembered as "et al."
I was on the cover of USA Today on the steps of the Supreme Court the day after the decision came down, but that's not available online.
O-kay. Sadly I don't speak lawyerese, and the second link is a 404 for me. Sorry.
quote:It is relevant to the existence of claims that could be pursued in court but are not, so it is relevant to my claim you were challenging.
That was kind of a kneejerk rebuttal. My bad. Not sure I understand, though; what's it got to do with a school?
quote:OK, fair enough. But that’s makes a lot of intolerance “understandable,” because almost everyone has a credible claim of being subject to intolerance, and almost every group has been intolerant at some point.
Well sure, and I do think that is the case. What I was saying, though, is that the reasoning behind this misapplication of policy is understandable.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You have specific references to the doctrine of his church that place the blame for Jesus' death solely on the Jewish people?"
WHere, do tell, did I say solely?
I stated that his church believes Jews are responsible for the death of jesus...
Mel Gibson is a Catholic traditionalist, that is, a group of people that seperated themselves from the Vatican after Vatican II in 1965. Part of the Vatican II was the removal from Catholic theology that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. Gibson's church did not adopt Vatican II, but holds to Catholic theology from prior to that date, which includes in it that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus.
Mel has stated that all humans are ultimately responsible for Jesus' death, which is the theology of the Catholic church including prior to 1965. However, the charge of deicide, those who actually killed Jesus, is a charge steming from catholic theology from prior to 1965.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Because the kind of stories these kids are coming back with to tell their horrified Christian parents are highly unlikely to emerge from the mouths of non-Christian schoolteachers, but rather from the mouths of Christian schoolteachers who do not understand the necessity of the restrictions under which they work.
What necessity? What harm would come of reading the book that would necessitate the teacher not allowing the book?
Harm might come from not reading it, because it would prevent an educational experience and hurt the girl's feelings, but I don't see what bad you think could come of reading it. It's not like a bunch of kids are going to go home feeling their religious views have been rejected because a Christian girl in their class read a Christian book in school. (If kids DID go home thinking that, they probably need the lesson in tolerance anyway - you can't go through life being offended by the expression of alternative religious views.) If someone brought in a Muslim religious book to school and read it to me and my classmates, I certainly never would have been offended - and SHOULD not be.
In this case, it truly is just the law (and not any practical need) that would prevent the book reading - and not even that, if Dag is correct about how the courts have ruled.
[ December 20, 2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Well said, Sara.
Belle, it's so odd that the school would allow the children to make paper candy canes but not to read a book about them. Did the teacher tell you what law she was talking about? I think you have a right to have the school forward you a copy of it.
I, too, think that Emily's teacher should have kept her opinion to herself. It's understandable that she didn't, but a teacher should never express a negative opinion of a school policy to a student, religious or otherwise. I had lots of problems with the Y's afterschool program policies, but I never let the kids know.
I think that you would have handled my schoolyard incident perfectly and I wish you had been my teacher then. We were at recess in the yard, but the monitor (not my teacher, but a teacher in the school - they took turns) heard every word and smiled approvingly at the kids who were telling me that I was going to hell and that I killed Jesus. I don't think that is something that children should be allowed to say to each other and I don't think it's protected as religious speech. I assure you these kids were not expressing or discussing their Christianity, they were just using their Christianity to get away with being ugly to me, which is also disrespectful to Christianity.
I must say that I have been called "Christ-killer" ever since I can remember, by people who considered themselves good Christians. I have seen it spraypainted on tombstones and synagogue walls in 4 states. I was a religion major - I know that most Christians do not feel that way. But the ones who do feel that way do a lot of damage to Jews in the name of Jesus and that makes us sad and wary. If you'll recall, there were incidents after Gibson's movie came out. The biggest one was the church marquee in Denver that read, "The Jews killed Jesus. Period." It was eventually taken down, but the damage had been done. I can tell you that we had a lot of broken windows and grafitti in Richmond.
I try to focus on the righteous gentiles, who are in the majority and get so little attention. Like the gentile side of my family, the people who protested that church marquee, and the policemen who patrol the synagogues during our holidays. Like my friends here at Hatrack.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In this significant decision, a divided Court (5-4) held that it was a violation of the First Amendment Speech Clause but not transgressory of the Establishment Clauses for a state entity (the University of Virginia) to refuse to fund the costs of a student Christian newspaper when the money to pay for that newspaper was derived from a mandatory student assessment of $14 per student/per semester.
In so holding, the Court relied heavily on the factual similarities and analysis in Lamb's Chapel (1993). According to the majority, the Speech Clause violation was the censoring of the Christian "viewpoint" on issues relating to "student news, information, opinion, entertainment, or academic communications," while the Establishment Clause was not violated because the printing costs were part of a neutral scheme of benefits that the University bestowed on more than 100 student groups. This case was the first Supreme Court case holding that it was permissible to give direct financial aid to an organization (and its press) that was avowedly religious in its operation, though the Court never used the language of "pervasively sectarian" to describe the student organization.
Important Facts
The Student Council at the U of VA authorizes funding of student organizations called Contracted Independent Organizations (CIO) through the Student Activities Fund. These CIOs must have a majority of its members as students and fulfill other procedural requirements, but they are considered independent of the U of VA. Of the more than 300 CIOs, about 115 received funding. There were 11 categories of student groups that can seek funding, one of which is "student news, information, opinion, entertainment or academic communications media groups."
World Awake Publications (WAP), established to "publish a magazine of philosophical and religious expression," qualified as a CIO but was denied funding because of another student policy denying funding to a "religious organization," that is an organization that "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." After administrative appeals were exhausted, suit was filed, but both the District and Appeals Courts sided with the University. The former held that there was no speech violation because the U of VA did not discriminate based on content or viewpoint, while the Circuit Court held that the practice constituted viewpoint discrimination but that the Establishment Clause trumped the Speech clause and was not violated because of the University's "compelling interest in maintaining strict separation of church and state."
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I, too, wonder what's so shocking about the Chinese zodiac. I find it hard to believe it was taught in anything more than a, 'Look, this is a traditional Chinese belief' way. So some kids took it literally. Surprise!
As for the Mel Gibson thing, I thought a large part of the furor was his use of scenes with anti-Semitic overtones that aren't actually in the Bible. This is is secondhand knowledge, though; I've never looked into it myself.
[ December 20, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: ae ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres, he was referring to the necessity to not avoid teaching about christianity when teaching about other religions was done, I do believe.
That's certainly been my experience; the worst teachers at teaching fairly about christianity are the christians (and that tends to be because of some bizarre assumption that teaching about christianity is somehow illegal).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
More stuff that I've found:
This one blows my mind - the school district thinks that educators shouldn't teach kids what is in the Declaration of Independence?
quote:PASADENA, Ca., Nov. 30 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Cupertino Union School District in California ordered educator, Stephen Williams, to refrain using historical documents like the Declaration of Independence and numerous other documents because they had the word "God" in the body of the papers.
The Alliance Defense Fund filed papers for declaratory and injunctive relief and damages against Patricia Vidmar, Principal of Stevens Creek School, William Bragg. Superintendent of Cupertino Union School District and Board of Education members: Pearl Cheng, Ben Liao, Josephine Lucey, Gary McCue and George Tyson.
The California Social Science Instructional Resources Evaluation even states, "The primary sources represent extensive variation and historical value in their nature and include, as appropriate to the content for a grade, materials such as documents, court decisions, speeches, debates, inaugural addresses, diaries, journals, slave diaries, excerpts from autobiographies, essays and religious literature." (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/hs/im/documents/k8hssev.pdf)
Emphasis Mine.
quote:TEMPE, AZ, Nov 17 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter at Arizona State University College of Law (ASU) filed a lawsuit today against school officials who demanded that the chapter and its members abide by the school’s “nondiscrimination” policy that would prevent the chapter from conditioning membership and choosing leadership on the basis of an individual’s agreement with the CLS “Statement of Faith.”
The school’s policy, found in the University’s Student Code of Conduct, forces the CLS chapter, and other campus religious groups to accept non-Christian members and officers. The policy applies whether or not the student group is registered by and receiving benefits from the University. Moreover, in order to receive status as a registered student organization, the organization’s leaders must pledge compliance with all provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, including the “nondiscrimination” provision. The federal civil rights lawsuit alleges that ASU is violating the First Amendment rights of expressive association, free speech and free exercise of religion of the CLS chapter and other campus religious groups by failing to exempt them from the “nondiscrimination” provision in the Student Code of Conduct.
Through counsel at the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom, the CLS chapter asked school officials in late September to exempt the group and other religious student organizations from the religion and sexual orientation portions of the “nondiscrimination” provision of the Student Code of Conduct. The letter explained that anyone is welcome to attend chapter meetings and events, but that official members and leaders must agree to the CLS Statement of Faith, which is considered orthodox in both the Protestant and Catholic traditions. School officials denied the chapter’s request for an exemption, placing the chapter and its members in jeopardy of University sanctions under the Student Code of Conduct should they continue to require that members and leaders adhere to the Statement of Faith.
“Religious student organizations, like all other student organizations, should be able to come together around shared commitments,” stated Steven H. Aden, Chief Litigation Counsel for the Center for Law & Religious Freedom, located in Annandale, Virginia. “It is unfortunate that Arizona State University has chosen to value political correctness over religious freedom.”
The Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Here's something interesting, not related to religion, but about the school voucher issue:
quote:SACRAMENTO, Nov 12 /Christian Wire Service/ -- The Pro-Family Law Center's lawyers are handling a unique Sacramento Superior Court case (No. 04AS00459) that could result in the creation of judicial vouchers for California's highly gifted children. However, the California Department of Education is now strenuously opposing the idea of a voucher for a 14-year-old child now attending UCLA, even though the facts of the case suggest that this might be the only suitable education for a highly gifted child such as the plaintiff.
Levi Levy, the child-plaintiff, began college at age 7. He passed the California High School Proficiency Exam at age 9, and began attending UCLA in January 2004. His mother, single and working, is not able to continue paying full cost for a suitable education for her child. While other California children, of the plaintiff's same age, are being provided a state-funded education, the CDE refuses to extend the same to this child, and, presumably, other similarly gifted children.
According to PFLC's attorneys (Lively & Ackerman of Temecula, CA), the California Constitution and related federal judicial decisions require that an education, "suitable" to the specific needs of each child, must be provided by the State of California. Any failure to provide a suitable education is alleged to be a violation of the federal Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, it is also claimed that the truancy laws require Levy to be in attendance at a publicly funded school until he is 16 years of age, regardless of his highly gifted status.
In papers recently filed by the CDE, it was stated that "[Plaintiffs are] attempting to obtain the functional equivalent of a voucher for her son's university-level education ..." The CDE claims that they do not owe a "constitutional duty" to the child in this case.
PFLC attorney Richard D. Ackerman has responded to these claims by stating, "The one size fits all approach to education is failing the plaintiff in this case. At some point in time, we are going to have to realize that it is intellectual torture to require a highly gifted child to maintain compulsory attendance in a failing system that doesn't even work for average students. At a bare minimum, the CDE ought to be required to fund Levi's education to the same monetary level as provided on a per-student basis for every other child in the public schools, which happens to be between six and seven thousand dollars a head." Papers indicating the essence of PFLC's position were filed in court today.
This case will likely end up being appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, regardless of who comes out the victor in this important case. According to Ackerman, "This case has the potential to overhaul a failing educational system, and may open the doors to a truly suitable education for each child within the public school system."
And, a group of people who have left the homosexual lifestyle find their views are also being kept out of the public schools:
quote:MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD, Nov. 8 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Regina Griggs, executive director for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), called on the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education to reject the final recommendations by its Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development ("Committee"). The Committee advises the School Board on school curriculum dealing with family life, which now includes sexual orientation. The School Board will meet on November 9, 2004, to vote on the recommendations.
According to Jackie Rice, PFOX's local representative on the Committee, the Committee has approved materials for students and teachers published by gay activist groups, yet rejected ex-gay materials. Said Rice, "The Committee approved a student video demonstrating condom use that encourages fruit flavored condoms for oral sex, even after being told to delete this phrase by the School Board. Yet the Committee rejected any mention of ex-gays in the school curriculum and resources unless it was something negative about us. As an African-American and a representative of the ex-gay community, I resent the Committee's refusal to recognize diversity or an individual's right to self-determination."
Added Griggs, "The Committee's decision to censor ex-gay materials while approving anti-ex-gay references hurts us and our families, and subjects the ex-gay community to hate and ridicule. For example, the Committee approved Just the Facts, a pamphlet published by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN), a gay advocacy group. This pamphlet instructs school administrators to ignore any other point of view concerning homosexuality - even from parents whose children are students at the school."
According to Griggs, the Committee is violating state law by censoring ex-gay speech. Said Griggs, "The Board's own policy states that citizen advisory committees are required by Maryland law in order 'to ensure that local school boards will be informed by a variety of opinions from citizens.' The School Board placed a PFOX representative on the committee in order to receive viewpoints from all segments of the community, yet our input to the Board is continually blocked by gay activist groups and others who serve on this Committee and deny equality for ex-gays. The Committee has failed to serve its purpose."
The Committee is chaired by David Fishback. As the father of two gay sons, Mr. Fishback uses his position as chair to engage in hostile remarks about ex-gays to the Committee and promote gay advocacy materials while urging the rejection of ex-gay materials. "It's unconscionable that in this age of civil rights, the Board allows its committee chair to be openly hostile of ex-gays," said Griggs. "Having gay family members does not mean that we have to deny that ex-gays exist. We must promote inclusion and tolerance of everyone, both gay and ex-gay. Favoring homosexuality over another sexual orientation is discriminatory and hurts our schools."
Ms. Griggs also calls on the Board to accept PFOX's separate list of ex-gay materials for inclusion in the school curriculum. Explained Griggs, "The Board cannot make an informed decision when information about a minority group in its community is deliberately withheld from the Board. The Committee's phobia of ex-gays demonstrates why the Board must include ex-gays in the school's educational curriculum on sexual orientation. Ex-gays are part of our community and should not be discredited or excluded. Inclusive information is in the best interest of students and teachers, and affects the safety of our children."
quote:You said, "It's OK to take shots at whites, Christians, and men."
And it's not. If it's wrong to take the shots, then it's wrong.
It's really that simple.
For crying out loud, Dag, try and give me the benefit of the doubt. When I say it's ok to take shots at those groups, I'm talking in a relative sense.
For the whites here. If a black man walk passed you and said "cracker" in passing, what would your reaction be?
Personally, I'd be surprised and kind of amused. The term cracker isn't connected to any kind of power struggle. Getting called a cracker is actually kind of amusing.
Thinking about it. When watching a movie, don't white audiences laugh when a black character calls a white character a cracker? It's a different story whena white character calls a black character a nigger, right?
Heck, we don't even say that word. We say "n-word". Because it's bound up with a series of vicious connotations.
Dag, I'd be curious to hear your story about racial discrimination.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
With all due respect, blocking the P-FOX stuff makes sense because their views paint a completely wrong view of homosexuality. It is a fact that most reparative therapy really doesn't work and causes more harm than good.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Tom:
quote:Hm. It sounds like a huge chunk of the problem is Christian public school teachers.
My son wouldn't tell us who told him that he couldn't pray in school or say "Jesus". His teacher that year was not a Christian...she was a fruitcake. I spent an unusually significant amount of time in my son's classroom that year because my work schedule allowed it, and got to know his teacher rather well. She was fruity.
I suspect it was one of the kids in his school who said it to him.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"This one blows my mind - the school district thinks that educators shouldn't teach kids what is in the Declaration of Independence?"
No. This one's been quoted WAY out of context. The teacher in question has for years attempted to pass out pamphlets -- containing Bible verses -- explaining how America is a Christian country; the administration has repeatedly asked him to stop. Recently, he started passing out a similar pamphlet that cited references to God and the Creator in early documents as "proof" of the exclusively Christian intent of the Founding Fathers.
-----
The second article cited notes that a religious campus organization is suing the college because the college charter forbids organizations funded by the college from banning membership and/or leadership roles to individuals based on religion or sexual orientation. They hope to prove that religious organizations are entitled to discriminate against members based on religion, but that non-religious organizations are not entitled to the same discrimination (i.e. that the Chess Club could not prevent Muslims from joining, but that the Christian Legal Society could.)
While at first this stance seems logical, I think you'll agree that spending even a moment of thought on it reveals the major flaw.
--------
The third case reveals one of the major flaws of the voucher system, and is an excellent example of why vouchers should never be instituted on a large scale.
----
As for the fourth, from the "Christian Wire Service," I'm made relatively suspicious of their objectivity by lines like this one: "The Committee is chaired by David Fishback. As the father of two gay sons, Mr. Fishback uses his position as chair to engage in hostile remarks about ex-gays to the Committee and promote gay advocacy materials while urging the rejection of ex-gay materials."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's certainly a fact that there are people out there that disagree with you, Syn.
[ December 20, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Foust, compare words with similar weight behind them. For example, if someone called me a Nazi or Klansman, I'd be very upset, and it would be as bad a "shot" as calling someone the N-word.
As for the specific instance, it involved government contracting. We lost two very specific opportunities that were yanked at the last minute and changed to 8-A (minority-small-business only) status. Together they would have allowed us to double the size of the company within a year.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Actually, the second one likely has a point, assuming they're correct on the "The policy applies whether or not the student group is registered by and receiving benefits from the University."
If the group is not receiving any benefits from the university, its just another freely associating group of people and should be able to conduct itself as it sees fit.
The school would likely also need to make it possible for the group to obtain on campus room to meet in, though I'm not certain of the history of law in that field.
However, the school would not be able to offer any funding or extend its tax exemption to that group, I do believe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"For example, if someone called me a Nazi or Klansman, I'd be very upset, and it would be as bad a 'shot' as calling someone the N-word."
Do you really think so? The reason I ask is that both the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialists were clubs that people chose to join and have negative associations now only because the clubs themselves were founded on odious principles -- whereas I don't think anyone affected by the "n-word" chose to join a group.
Calling you a Klansman, in other words, is technically incorrect because you have not in fact chosen to join the Klan. Calling a black man a "nigger" doesn't even leave him the option of considering it logically incorrect -- because it doesn't matter whether he fits the stereotype at all, as long as he's got a darker skin.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, I'm sure how I would feel about this, Tom.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, but at this point, I don't care. They are completely wrong and that is all there is to it. It's agonizing for a person to have to go through something like that... Just this pain and frustrating and guilt. It's wrong. It's destructive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But Synth, that's exactly the kind of judgement we don't allow the government to force on others.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not suggesting that you don't know how you feel, Dag; I'm suggesting that you might not know how someone else feels.
In insisting that the insults are equivalent, you imply that you know exactly how it feels to be called a nigger. Do you?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So your admitting the possibility I may feel worse?
OK, very good.
I've been called both based on political opinions I've held, usually by people who are ignorant about what my political opinions are and why I hold them.
Dagonee
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:For example, if someone called me a Nazi or Klansman, I'd be very upset, and it would be as bad a "shot" as calling someone the N-word.
I don't think it's analogous at all. You'd really take being called a klansmen personally?
In my experience, an insult can only hurt when you feel there's a touch of truth to it.
Since you're so hellbent on misunderstanding me, I'll make it clear that I don't think you're rascist. But "nazi" and "klansmen" would only hurt you if you if they touched on something inside you. So what are they touching on?
[ December 20, 2004, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Foust ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Yes, but at this point, I don't care. They are completely wrong and that is all there is to it.
Irony.
Mmm.
:licks chops:
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since you're so hellbent on misunderstanding me, I'll make it clear that I don't think you're rascist. But "nazi" and "klansmen" would only hurt you if you if they touched on something inside you. So what are they touching on?
I'm not hellbent on misunderstanding you. I don't buy the foundational premises of your position.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't buy the foundational premises of your position."
You disagree that being compared to someone who belonged to an odious organization based on a distortion or misunderstanding of your political views is not equivalent to being lumped into a secondary class based on the color of your skin?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*hates the n word*
I know it's impolite and unkind, but, after a ton of research and personal experience I think the right is wrong about most of their ideas on homosexuality. Such as reparative therapy. It really does not work. It has caused stress, pain, suicide and agony to many who have participated in it. It does nothing to get rid of homosexual attraction, instead it teaches a person to just repress their homosexual urges. It's damaging and it should be stopped. Not only does it cause pain to the individual but to their family as well. I do not think that homosexuality damages society, no one has given me proof of this... I think the people who state things like this are as wrong as the people who, in the past, stated that blacks are inferior to whites. That isn't true. This sort of thing really does need to stop.. this scapegoating. I hate it and will not accept it anymore... *is derailing the topic....*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Such as reparative therapy. It really does not work. It has caused stress, pain, suicide and agony to many who have participated in it.
The folks in PFOX heartily disagree with you, it would seem.
Who are you to challenge their desire to love whom they choose?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Such as reparative therapy. It really does not work. It has caused stress, pain, suicide and agony to many who have participated in it.
And yet, there are ex-gays who have married, had children, and leave a happy heterosexual lifestyle that would vigorously disagree with you.
But, the point here is not which view is right - it's whether or not it's wrong to censor speech by one group just because you don't agree with them - if your policy is that all community groups deserve equal access.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Jinx, Scott. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Except that, having not seen the materials in question, we do not know whether the committee turned them down based purely on their ideology or if there were other complications that made them unsuitable. And we have only the "Christian Wire Service" to imply the former.
[ December 20, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You disagree that being compared to someone who belonged to an odious organization based on a distortion or misunderstanding of your political views is not equivalent to being lumped into a secondary class based on the color of your skin?
That's not the foundational premise of his line of reasoning. It's a result, one I may agree with or not, but for very different reasons than the ones put forth by Foust.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Jinxes don't work if you say the person's name right after claiming the jinx, Belle.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
It's not a matter of loving who they choose though.. The problem is that they are making many false claims, using questionable methods and they probably do not even do studies ten years down the line to determine if their findings are true. They are saying things like homosexuality in men is caused by insuffient masculinity, this isn't true... That isn't the case at all... These folks will state things like homosexuality is the cause of depression, suicide and AIDS when that just isn't true. Much of that depression comes as a result of people's attitudes towards gay people! It comes from the intolerance and downright hatred society still has for gays. Gays are still alienated from their families and friends and groups like this do not help. If folks could truly be cured of homosexuality attraction, that is all well and good, and I don't think that a person who is attracted to the same sex can't love someone of the opposite sex, but there are problems and side effects groups like this will sweep under the rug. How many people in these groups still lead double lives? Still cruise without protection? This isn't the answer when it comes to homosexuality is. Really understanding it is the answer, not rehatching Freudian theories that have been abandoned!
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:They are saying things like homosexuality in men is caused by insuffient masculinity, this isn't true... That isn't the case at all... These folks will state things like homosexuality is the cause of depression, suicide and AIDS when that just isn't true. Much of that depression comes as a result of people's attitudes towards gay people! It comes from the intolerance and downright hatred society still has for gays.
As Tom pointed out, you haven't seen their materials (or have you?) so you don't know that they make these claims in them at all.
And, does it matter? I mean, obviously you disagree with them. I disagree with the religious beliefs held by the Jewish people, does that mean that I think the Jewish community center shouldn't be allowed to pass out pamphlets at the public schools? No, I don't.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Edit: I read this wrong. Never mind.
[ December 20, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Zeugma ]
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And Tom, instead of insisting that the Christian Wire Service is unreliable, why not read the actual content of the letters sent to the school advisory board before blanketly dismissing the claims of this organization?
quote:This resource consists of a quiz whereby students attempt to get the right answer on questions about homosexuality. The answers are factually incorrect and contain no footnotes to back up what are essentially opinions and not facts. For example, one question asks if “loving people of the same sex” is “sinful.” The answer given is that “many religious denominations do not believe this” and cites the Anglican Church of Canada as a resource. No alternate theology is presented although numerous denominations reject that viewpoint.
Is it right for a public school resource to refer students to only one particular religious resource?
quote:Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Q&A in Prevention Researcher
Transgenderism is a gender identity disorder, yet the article fails to recommend counseling for students struggling with gender confusion. Instead, it recommends that schools establish unisex bathrooms for transgender students. The article also discusses certain religious groups in a negative manner, claiming that evangelicals and fundamentalists are more likely to be less tolerant of homosexuals, although these faiths have gay outreach ministries. It recommends that the reader refer students to select religions, even if these religions conflict with the student’s own religious upbringing. In particular, the article recommends religions such as Lutherans Concerned, Dignity for Catholics, Rainbow Baptists, and More Light Presbyterians. It fails to mention that Dignity is no longer part of the Catholic Church. Courage, an Catholic organization which assists homosexuals to lead chaste lives, has officially replaced Dignity.
The Committee rejected ex-gay materials because some of the materials cited religious references, yet it approved this and other religious content articles, as described in this letter, because it agreed with their viewpoint. The Committee is guilty of viewpoint discrimination. Advocating certain religions over others is also discriminatory. Nor should teachers be instructed to refer students to other religions, especially without parental permission. This article has no place in a school setting.
Does anybody disagree with the last statement there?
The committee has rejected some materials from this group by claiming they have religious content - yet it approved other materials with religious content. Either both should be allowed in or neither.
quote:American Psychiatric Association (APA): Fact Sheet: Homosexual and Bisexual Issues, Feb. 2000
This resource should never have been approved by the Committee because it is outdated and was replaced by the APA with the below fact sheet.
American Psychiatric Association (APA): Fact Sheet: Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues, revised May 2000. This resource is also outdated and should not be used. For example, the fact sheet submitted to the Committee for its review consisted of three pages and cited the APA’s December 1998 position statement on psychiatric treatment for sexual orientation. However, the 1998 position statement was updated by the APA May 2000 statement, which is not incorporated into the fact sheet. Consequently, the fact sheet is erroneous.
For example, p. 2 of the fact sheet states that “There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of ‘reparative therapy’ as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation…” However, the APA May 2000 statement changes that finding to read: “To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of ‘reparative’ treatments.” [Emphasis added.] This is a serious omission which renders the resource erroneous and therefore useless, if not harmful.
We also note that since the release of the May 2000 statement, several studies on the efficacy of reparative therapy have been published in scientific journals. For example, see "Initial Empirical and Clinical Findings Concerning the Change Process for Ex-Gays” in the American Psychological Association journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (June 2002); “Motivational, Ethical, and Epistemological Foundations in the Clinical Treatment of Unwanted Homoerotic Attraction” in the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 29, 13-28 (2003); “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?” in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, 403-417 (October 2003); and the American Psychological Association journal Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training, Vol. 39, No. 1, 66-75 (2002).
While there is probably no study that can ever conclusively prove that homosexuals can change the focus of their attraction, the fact that studies suggest it MAY be possible make the stance by this ex-gay advocacy group certainly understandable. They feel that exclusion of their viewpoint is discriminatory, and I can see why.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
<derailment>
quote:Christianity rarely meets serious intolerance (except perhaps in academia).
You know, as someone in the process of becoming a part of "academia," I'm wondering if I might need to work on developing my own persecution complex.
I realize this is a topic for a whole other thread, but, from my own first-hand view, I don't see any intolerance of Christianity in my academic field--which is a liberal arts field, which so many people seem to frequently rail against. I have to say, I'm fairly sick of people blithely labeling all of academia as intolerant. It just isn't. Yes, there are instances of intolerance of Christianity. There are also instances of Christians displaying anti-semitism--and of course, not all Christians, not most Christians even, feel that way.
</derailment>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course not all academics are like that. But had that exclusion not been made, the counterexamples would have been immediate and numerous. Within academia as an institution, a lot of anti-Christianity exists.
But, no one should ever decide person X is anti-Christian because they happen to work in academia.
Dagonee
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I know. I just get tired of hearing people lump "academic" and "anti-Christian" together as if they were synonymous. I know plenty of Christian professors, and I'm sure they don't appreciate it. I know I certainly don't. I know lots of argument has been made that "a lot of anti-Christianity" exists in academia, but as someone in academia, I don't see it. I was also riffing on the persecution complex thing, about which I agree with (someone, I forget who said it): moral outrage seems to be quite fashionable these days. I'm just taking my fair share.
But, I think I'm probably too grumpy to be in this thread. I probably should just stick to the fluff today.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have seen the material. I torture myself doing research on this subject. There is belief, there is facts, and these people are not presenting facts. They are presenting false and harmful information. It's one thing if a person wants to distribute pamphlets about their particular religion, that is all well and good, but what groups like Exodus and P-FOX are doing is mildly simular to groups stating falsehoods about Christians, Jews or a particular race. I don't really think it's wrong for them not to be allowed to submit pamphlets like that at a school.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
As an atheist who hopes one day to enter into academia, I was conceding a possible exception rather than making a claim for.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:*hates the n word*
Can you explain why, Syn? Do you hate the word "cracker" just as much?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Cracker is more... funny than offensive. Like honky. I hate the N word because I'm black and if someone said it at me I'd probably hit them.. Plus it's so hateful. It makes me think of lynchings and people being whipped. I hate most slurs against people. They are dehumanizing.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Interesting, Syn. When Chet and I went to Thanksgiving at my buddy Dre's, he and his family used it to each other fairly frequently. I have to admit, I was a bit surprised at first, but when no one beat each other up for it, I honestly stopped hearing it.
I was much more disturbed two days later when we went to breakfast at Chet's family's for after-Thanksgiving. Chet's aunt was talking about wanting red-headed grandbabies and how she was glad her middle son had picked a red haired girlfriend. So her eldest, being a smart aleck, said he'd have to ask Shawnequa if she had an red-heads in the family. That sparked about a five minute discussion- some of it silly, some of it inappropriate- and all of it in front of the cousin who's part black. No, I forgot, she's hispanic. That's an ethnicity. She can still be black.
Chet commented on it a few days later. He was really glad we'd spent Thanksgiving with our friends instead of his family. It's so sad that people can still act like that and never see the insanity of their own actions.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Cracker is more... funny than offensive. Like honky. I hate the N word because I'm black and if someone said it at me I'd probably hit them.. Plus it's so hateful. It makes me think of lynchings and people being whipped. I hate most slurs against people. They are dehumanizing.
This is what I'm saying! Slurs against racial minorities are associated with crimes. Slurs against women are associated with crimes. Slurs against white guys? The only thing they're associated with is humour.
It's the just way the power game works. It's not a good thing, but it's not something that causes white males to suffer.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
This topic is going the same way as the "A man never gets raped" line.
You know what, They can and they do. I don't care what anybody says. Men get raped avery year. The only reason you don't hear about it so much is because men are afraid to admit when it happens to them and it never gets reported. A good friend of mine down in SC was raped 5 years ago. It had happened maybe 4 months after I met him.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Last I heard, 10% of arrests in rape cases were women.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: It's the just way the power game works. It's not a good thing, but it's not something that causes white males to suffer.
It makes everybody suffer, because it teaches people that insensitivity is perfectly fine as long as you can get away with it.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
You know, we've been hearing about the guy who was banned from using the Declaration of Independence in his classroom on conservative talk radio up here (particularly on the Tony Snow show), and I've been sitting there, thinking, "There is WAY more to this story than I'm hearing."
Usually when I hear a story that inflammatory, my first reaction is to stop and imagine what real-life situation might be spun into the hyped-up stories that I'm hearing.
I was helped along by the fact that the teacher in question was actually interviewed on the air (perhaps by Snow, perhaps by someone else, I'm not sure). He couldn't get through three questions without quoting scripture. One of those look-how-religious-I-am types. Made me think, "Aha. This guy's a zealot. His principal wasn't banning the documents. He was banning this guy's USE of the documents. I wouldn't want this guy teaching my kids history, either, and I'm religious."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Why wasn't the guy just fired?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"And Tom, instead of insisting that the Christian Wire Service is unreliable, why not read the actual content of the letters sent to the school advisory board before blanketly dismissing the claims of this organization?"
Honestly? Because I don't think that the proper response to the admission of improper materials is the admission of equally improper materials that just happen to take an opposing view.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I agree, however, that it would make more sense to have a day on which a Christian could come in and say "This is what some of us Christians believe," but I suspect that an enormous number of Christians would find that offensive. As it stands, there aren't enough Muslims in most places in this country to object when, say, a Sunni sums up their faith on their behalf; there are enough Baptists to throw a fit if a Catholic starts explaining how good Christians confess regularly.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Sorry.![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
That's an ethnicity. She can still be black.