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."
"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?"
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
*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...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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).
posted
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?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
*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.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Sorry.
