To all Christians who think that they are being persecuted in America[W:610] (1 Viewer)

[pinqy]

Not the point...the question AJ asked was which rights have been eliminated from religious people..

And if I had been answering that question by AJ, you'd have a point. But I was addressing a statement made by trouble13 about the nature of separation.

 

[pinqy]

Again. That it is or is not an inalienable right itself is not the issue. The fact that the right was taken away is. And, the fact that celebrating Christmas and Easter in public schools was at one time a right of those so religiously inclined is not in question.

Yes it is. It may have been a tradition or custom that was allowed/accepted, but that doesn't make it a right.

 

[roguenuke]

I cant say where i fall on this. I generally agree with everything you said but i also think the freedom of expression is important. Censorship in schools is problematic but so is inciting violence. Im kind of torn where to draw a line.

I will say this though if gay rights is such a volatile subject that they are telling people they are not allowed to openly oppose it than nobody should be openly promoting it either. That is just as antagonostic as the antigay stuff. Its a topic the school should stay out of alltogether or take on openly giving everyone the freedom to weigh in with their opinions.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Then would it be okay to wear shirts that are anti-Islam or antireligion or antiinterracial relationships? What about a tshirt that proclaimed Wiccans were witches and said something about not permitting a witch to live on the back? How about a passage about not allowing women to teach or wear pants or teach men? Should those things not be considered just as inflammatory as supporting rights for women?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[calamity]

And if I had been answering that question by AJ, you'd have a point. But I was addressing a statement made by trouble13 about the nature of separation.

Well, exactly what the establishment clause represents is an ongoing battle just like the one over bearing arms. A literal interpretation of the First would allow the celebrations of Christian holidays in public spaces. And, yes, they would have to afford other religions the same right.

 

[roguenuke]

Not the point...the question AJ asked was which rights have been eliminated from religious people. Removing religious holiday celebrations and icons from schools would be the biggest one in my lifetime.

The whys of it all are not part of this argument. We all know the why is a constitutional battle.

But those never really were rights, particularly in having the schools sponsor/promote those things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[calamity]

But those never really were rights, particularly in having the schools sponsor/promote those things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was to them, the people who liked it. That you (and probably AJ) do not see them as "rights" is in dispute and why we see this stuff in courts.

 

[roguenuke]

It was to them, the people who liked it. That you (and probably AJ) do not see them as "rights" is in dispute and why we see this stuff in courts.

And why they generally don't win such cases.

Anything can go to court. Winning is a whole other matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pinqy]

A literal interpretation of the First would allow the celebrations of Christian holidays in public spaces.

They are allowed...as long as no preference is given to religious displays and it does not give the impression of government endorsement or support.

 

[calamity]

And why they generally don't win such cases.

Anything can go to court. Winning is a whole other matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They win their fair share. Remember Hobby Lobby. I'm sure you would not call that a right, but SCOTUS certainly did.

 

[calamity]

They are allowed...as long as no preference is given to religious displays and it does not give the impression of government endorsement or support.

I'm not a lawyer. So, I do not know all the twists and turns. But, I would imagine the First is more about not having a religious curriculum than it is denying a Chirstmas sing along. But, unlike AJ, I'm at least willing to call that my opnion and not FACTS WIN AGAIN!!! :laughat:

 

[trouble13]

Then would it be okay to wear shirts that are anti-Islam or antireligion or antiinterracial relationships? What about a tshirt that proclaimed Wiccans were witches and said something about not permitting a witch to live on the back? How about a passage about not allowing women to teach or wear pants or teach men? Should those things not be considered just as inflammatory as supporting rights for women?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So is inflamatory speach the cenorship line in schools?



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[sangha]

Just curious about your opinion about students not being allowed to wear antigay shirts. Do you feel the same way about progay shirts too? Is that a topic that neither the student body nor the school should be allowed to express an opinion on?

Where should we draw the line on freedom of expression in learning institutions?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Schools dress codes are a local concern, determined by the parents in the district. As long as the rules are designed to further legitimate educational interests, they are fine by me.

 

[sangha]

1. I didn't check out the veracity of this specific story, but it was not the only one on the list to choose from. We can probably stipulate that the gist of the story is true.

2. Why not?

3. So, would you feel the same way if someone was suspended for wearing a Black Lives Matter T but not if he wore a Trump T? I doubt this school had a rule banning shirts with writing on them.

1) You can stipulate. I choose not to believe things I do not know to be true

2) Because thats not what the word means

3) See above post.

 

[sangha]

How was it not?

I have already explained how it is not a right

 

[sangha]

Again. That it is or is not an inalienable right itself is not the issue. The fact that the right was taken away is. And, the fact that celebrating Christmas and Easter in public schools was at one time a right of those so religiously inclined is not in question.

Private groups or individuals have no right to use public facilities for their own purposes.

 

[LittleNipper]

How is that relevant?


No school celebrates the 4th of July...schools are closed.


There are no rules against secular Christmas celebrations that I'm aware of.


What did the children who did not want to participate do? I'm betting you don't know any that chose not to. But you haven't mentioned anything specifically religious in these activities.


What do you think I feel threatened by? I feel threatened by infringements on liberty. Of the government or the majority through the government infringing on religious liberty by supporting one religion or group of religions and giving special preference.

It is relevant in that this demonstrates that there has occurred a change.
The schools certainly do talk all about the 4th of July, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without any impediment. Yet there are likely small children of immigrants offend that their native laws and documents are elaborated about.

You don't care about Liberty. You care only about your own feelings. The Constitution clearly states that there are to be no laws prohibiting the free and unhampered expression of religion. Clearly, that no longer includes public institutions.

Actually, except that the music teacher would allow us to select Christmas Carols along with Christmas songs, there was no cohering by Christians. It was just a matter of tradition. The children whose parents didn't wish them to participate kept them home for an extra holiday off.

 

[trouble13]

Schools dress codes are a local concern, determined by the parents in the district. As long as the rules are designed to further legitimate educational interests, they are fine by me.

I can live with that even though it makes me a.little unconfortable limiting free expression in schools. I understand the precautionary element for doing it.

Where i would be uncomfortable is ban a shirt that maybe says drill baby drill in support of fossile fuels but allow other student wear shirts that are pro clean energy or having teachers only teaching one side of the xlimate change debate.

Things like make our schools feel more like indoctrination camps than leatning institutions.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

They win their fair share. Remember Hobby Lobby. I'm sure you would not call that a right, but SCOTUS certainly did.

I don't agree with it but that is different than the cases you described before. They got a law, a single law, not to apply to them due to their religious nature in their business. Personally, I do think the ruling was wrong but then again I'm all for simply setting up UHC for everyone and then everyone is paying for contraceptives for anyone through their taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

So is inflamatory speach the cenorship line in schools?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

In many cases, that can be a part of the line. Some schools won't allow kids to wear certain colors due to gang activity. Some won't allow certain styles of clothing. Many schools won't allow depictions of guns, drugs, Orr alcohol on students stuff, including tshirts.

You still have not answered my questions I've noticed. Would the school have been right or wrong to send a kid home, suspend her for wearing a tshirt that said tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing, bring back segregation? How about "Islam is the devil"? Christians ARE a hate group? I can think of plenty more.

Also in looking, I found that several students have also been suspended or asked to change their shirts for progay messages as well, something completely ignored in this thread. And those shirts were all positive messages, not disparaging ones about others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

It is relevant in that this demonstrates that there has occurred a change.
The schools certainly do talk all about the 4th of July, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without any impediment. Yet there are likely small children of immigrants offend that their native laws and documents are elaborated about.

You don't care about Liberty. You care only about your own feelings. The Constitution clearly states that there are to be no laws prohibiting the free and unhampered expression of religion. Clearly, that no longer includes public institutions.

Actually, except that the music teacher would allow us to select Christmas Carols along with Christmas songs, there was no cohering by Christians. It was just a matter of tradition. The children whose parents didn't wish them to participate kept them home for an extra holiday off.

Just because you were allowed to do something doesn't mean it was your right to do it. Just as in the past, teachers could show Disney movies, and then the devil gained control of Disney and restricted such showings in public schools because they got no money from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[calamity]

I don't agree with it but that is different than the cases you described before. They got a law, a single law, not to apply to them due to their religious nature in their business. Personally, I do think the ruling was wrong but then again I'm all for simply setting up UHC for everyone and then everyone is paying for contraceptives for anyone through their taxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Point is that something you and AJ may not consider a right, others do. And Hobby Lobby is a perfect example of how sometimes the other guy wins. The law regarding the Christmas assembly and decorations ban or resstrictions is an example which seems to have gone in the opposite direction.

 

[trouble13]

In many cases, that can be a part of the line. Some schools won't allow kids to wear certain colors due to gang activity. Some won't allow certain styles of clothing. Many schools won't allow depictions of guns, drugs, Orr alcohol on students stuff, including tshirts.

You still have not answered my questions I've noticed. Would the school have been right or wrong to send a kid home, suspend her for wearing a tshirt that said tolerance is the virtue of believing in nothing, bring back segregation? How about "Islam is the devil"? Christians ARE a hate group? I can think of plenty more.

Also in looking, I found that several students have also been suspended or asked to change their shirts for progay messages as well, something completely ignored in this thread. And those shirts were all positive messages, not disparaging ones about others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The argument the school makes is that if the student is qearing something that draws attention away from their curriculum, than its considered a distraction. They say they have the right to prohibit that stuff. That argument is not without merit.

My position contradicts that mentality in that i believe those distractions should be confronted. I look at those things as teachable moments.

To answer your question i would allow students to freely express themselves with their clothes/voices. I would draw the line at violence. If you cant express yourself peacefully you get expelled.

One of the things a civil society should know how to do is engage in civil debate with people we dont agree with. Thats something we should be teaching in schools.

Now i would not be opposed to a compromised position of saying mon-wed school dress code and stick to planned lessons and thur-fri freestyle day for students voices to be heard.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Point is that something you and AJ may not consider a right, others do. And Hobby Lobby is a perfect example of how sometimes the other guy wins. The law regarding the Christmas assembly and decorations ban or resstrictions is an example which seems to have gone in the opposite direction.

Please show a law rather than individual choice in school districts when it comes to Christmas decorations.

As for the hobby lobby case, it is still different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

The argument the school makes is that if the student is qearing something that draws attention away from their curriculum, than its considered a distraction. They say they have the right to prohibit that stuff. That argument is not without merit.

My position contradicts that mentality in that i believe those distractions should be confronted. I look at those things as teachable moments.

To answer your question i would allow students to freely express themselves with their clothes/voices. I would draw the line at violence. If you cant express yourself peacefully you get expelled.

One of the things a civil society should know how to do is engage in civil debate with people we dont agree with. Thats something we should be teaching in schools.

Now i would not be opposed to a compromised position of saying mon-wed school dress code and stick to planned lessons and thur-fri freestyle day for students voices to be heard.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Students can wear whatever they like outside of school. They need to abide by school dress codes while in school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Students can wear whatever they like outside of school. They need to abide by school dress codes while in school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What dictates what is allowable by the dress code?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk