Don't forget to bring your pork rinds for lunch!
Posted on 08/24/2009 4:01:56 PM PDT by Islaminaction
Here is an update on the "Florida Anti-Islam Church Steps it up a Notch!" story.
'Islam is of the devil' shirt appears at elementary school By Christopher Curry Staff writer August 24, 2009
A student at Talbot Elementary School wore a shirt bearing the message "Islam is of the devil" on the first day of school and was sent home for violation of the school district's dress code.
(Excerpt) Read more at islaminaction08.blogspot.com ...
Do you know how old the kid was? I don’t see what this stunt was supposed to accomplish.
The kid deserves the medal of freedom and the school board should be fired for violating his first amendment rights.
What makes it a stunt? Islam is no better than Nazism.
I guess the truth hurts??
I would not send my child to school wearing something like that, however.
Wow, an elementary school kid? Kids that age shouldn’t be asked to fight these battles, should they?
If a kid wants to tell the other kids in school Jesus loves them, that’s wonderful. But fighting false religions? With a t-shirt like that?
It would be interesting if this were the same school with the principal facing jailtime for praying over his own meal with no kids around
I agree, but did the kid’s parents put him/her up to this? To me, it seems like it could bring a lot of negative attention on the family.
I suspect none of these officials would deem shirts with Che Guevara's likeness or with any of the common left-wing lunatic slogans "offensive."
bookmark
I’m no friend of that devilish religion, nor of Nazism. But I’d hate to think kids were wearing t-shirts during World War II with stuff like “Nazis will burn in hell!” on them. Better for them to be scrounging up scrap metal and planting victory gardens.
Children are not pawns for us to play against the enemy. (And I hated it when my father used me that way too.) If we can’t win without ordering our children to the front lines, we deserve to lose.
True, if anymore details come out I will post them.
Well, if Muslims can strap bomb-vests on their kids, then Christian parents ought to be able to put anti-Islam t-shirts on their kids.
..If a kid wants to tell the other kids in school Jesus loves them, etc....
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I would imagine if he ‘told’ them through his T Shirt he would get the hook also...
NOW, if the kid wore a “Dung Jesus” or “Christ in Urine” replica he would probably get praised...??
Quick, someone call the political correct whambulance.
Children had better get used to fighting those battles because it is only going to get worse as they get older because liberals are aiding and abetting the Mohammedans in trying force America into dhimmitude.
Need to buy me one of those shirts....
The Dove World Outreach Center, a church in northwest Gainesville, began to draw protesters in July after posting a sign that read “Islam is of the devil” on its property. The Dove World Outreach Center is approximately one mile from the Talbot campus. School district officials would not comment on the identity of the student, or whether the child was a member of the Dove Outreach Center congregation, because of privacy issues.
Don't forget to bring your pork rinds for lunch!
ping
You are wrong. The school has every right to ask students to refrain from wearing shirts that are disruptive to the education process. When my son was in school, students were not allowed to wear shirts that advertised or promoted alcohol or drugs and I was supportive of that. I personally believe Islam is a diabolical religion that came right out of the pit of hell. I believe Muhammad was in a cave receiving revelations from Satan or a Demon of Satan. However, students should not be allowed to wear shirts to school that say that any more than they should be able to wear shirts that say, “Hitler was right” or “Jesus wasn’t God,” and so on.
Well you in turn stipulate that the imprudence of the parents does not diminish the First Amendment rights of the Child?
I agree with you.
I am also agreeing more and more with Justice Thomas on the matter, although I was apoplectic when first I read his opinion, now I am close to agreeing with it. ‘Children while in school and/or under the authority of the school do not have a first amendment right as applied to academic punishments’.
A child is school is under authority, and as such has no more right to speak nor assemble at will than a witness or spectator in a court of law.
Outside of school he can speak or assemble as he wishes - under the authority, then, of his parents, of course.
Where in hell did you get that bizarre notion?
No, from a study of law.
Let us stipulate as you suggest that it is imprudent and exploitive for parents to involve their children in these matters in this fashion.
Well you in turn stipulate that the imprudence of the parents does not diminish the First Amendment rights of the Child?
Your reply was as follows:
A child is school is under authority, and as such has no more right to speak nor assemble at will than a witness or spectator in a court of law.
Outside of school he can speak or assemble as he wishes - under the authority, then, of his parents, of course.
The question was whether or to what degree are a child's free-speech rights limited in school by his parents imprudence. Your response is to say the child has no free speech rights in school: "no more right to speak...". When asked "where in the hell" you get such a "bizarre notion"? You assert that it is from "a study of law."
I refer your attention to, MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK where the Supreme Court devotes 60 pages to discussing the extent of a student's free speech rights in school. In that case the court limited a child's rights to free speech but in no sense would the court tolerate a notion that the child has no free-speech rights in school. The question decided was the extent of those rights and it was decided that those rights extend far beyond your description.
In fact, the court said, quoting another case:
".while children assuredly do not .shed their constitutional rights . . . at the schoolhouse gate,. . . . the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school,. Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Ac- ton, 515 U. S. 646, 655.656.
You are right. I stand corrected. However, I have a real problem with the “education process” these days. With all the billions we are spending on schools these days I think it’s about time they started teaching American history , math and english instead of how to put a condom on a cucumber.
Sorry for the rant, but it makes me mad.
IT IS everybodies war bar none.
True is true!
In other words, the school can make a judgment and restrict speech providing it is reasonable for the conduct of its mission. If free-speech does not obstruct the mission, then the school cannot restrict it simply because the school thinks the parents are behaving imprudently, for example, by inculcating religious bigotry in their own children. The school authorities might have an argument that such bigotry is repugnant to the school mission and disruptive of the mission because it is worn on a shirt front and therefore should be restricted, but that is a different matter.
I understand you to be in support of parental rights. I am too. I want to make the distinction between what we might regard to be prudent and what should be considered constitutional when it comes to the state interfering in our parenting.
I am very wary of a doctrine that says that the subjective reaction of those allegedly offended should be the test which determines free-speech. In a nonschool public atmosphere such a standard is devastating to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has come treacherously close to imposing such a standard inside the school. I think we should be wary of that.
I also have reservations about a law which makes truants of children and criminals of parents who fail to attend school but restrict the constitutional rights of the child in the school. If the child has no constitutional rights and the parent no influence inside the school, the potential for mischief is grave. If the court will not recognize an objective right of free speech in the child in the school there is simply no alternative but to spend money to bail a child out of school by putting him in a private school. This is dangerous public policy generated by a wrongheaded understanding of the Constitution in my opinion. It encourages a tyranny of the mob by pawning constitutional rights to the mob's subjective passions over the rights of a citizen to free speech.
I’d be a whole lot more impressed if the parents wore the shirts rather than using their small child to express their opinion.
If the parents have worn such shirts to work, to church events, in restaurants and stores, and so on, then I salute them for it. If they haven’t, then I think they are lower than pond scum for being so cowardly as to put their own child in a position to take the flak for them.
1) Government schools can NOT be religiously neutral. It is impossible for any school to be religiously neutral. Schools must choose between a godless or God-center worldview. They must choose one or the other. Neither worldview ( godless or God-centered) can be religiously neutral in content or consequences.
Government schools establish the religious worldview of the most powerful lobby group, and crush the religious belief of those in opposition to this worldview.
2) Government schools force children to SHUT UP for nearly all of the school day. If they don't, the government will punish them. If they are sufficiently resistant they may even be sent to real prison. Parents too fall under this restriction while in the government school.
3) Government schools strictly control what children can publish and distribute with threats of real prison if a child were to be sufficiently defiant. ( Again, parents, too.)
4) It is government workers who choose exactly with whom he will assemble. ( Parents too while at the school.)
5) And free practice and expression of a child's religion is forbidden for most ( if not all) of a child's imprisonment ( oops! school day). ( Ditto for the parents.)
Yes, parents can ransom their child from the government kiddie prisons ( schools). They can pay an extra education tax in the form of private or home schooling. Some call this jizya.
There will be eternal conflicts over government schooling because government schools are guaranteed to offend the freedom of conscience and First Amendment Rights of the citizens. Sadly, judges rule as narrowly as possible and ( to my knowledge) have never addressed the fundamental unconstitutionality of government imprisonment ( oops again! “schooling”) of children.
I would like to add that the left has frustrated every attempt to fix education and fix the environment. They have managed to convert venues of education into prisons of indoctrination. The notion that schools are necessary as a means for society to acculturate its children has long since been displaced by the harm the indoctrination is doing. Of course, none of this harm is balanced by the learning of the 3Rs, a concern which seems to be remote to the consciousness of our professional educators.
When children ( who have committed no crime) **rationally** resist being treated like a prisoner of the state, and refuse to attend, real police are send out. If the child continues to resist he will be hauled before a judge and sentenced to hard time prison. Ditto for any parent who resists the government schools.
Government schools are an abomination and teach children every day how to be good little prisoners of the fascist state.
This is what I said in full :
Because the state, in this case the school authorities, is prohibited from restricting free speech by the First Amendment. The Court recognizes an exception to that prohibition in a school situation when the restriction of speech is reasonably calculated to benefit the school mission...
There is nothing inconsistent between what I actually said in full and what you claim to be inconsistent:
In other words, the school can make a judgment and restrict speech providing it is reasonable for the conduct of its mission.
In fact it is virtually a tautology and therefore hardly inconsistent.
Your second paragraph can only be described as Kafkaesque:
The right of free speech is not unbounded, but can sometimes rightly be circumscribed, as in a court of law or, as you acknowledge, a school: "the school can make a judgment and restrict speech providing it is reasonable for the conduct of its mission." Complements quite nicely what I argued in post #25.
It's Kafkaesque because it does not "complement quite nicely what I argued post #25" if flatly contradicts what you said in post #25:
A child is school is under authority, and as such has no more right to speak nor assemble at will than a witness or spectator in a court of law.
You did not argue that the right of free speech is "not unbounded but sometimes rightly be circumscribed" you said "a child... has no more right to speak..."
It is not I who is "confusing" and who is "contradictory."
Bump your post!
I think much remedial work needs to be done in an athletics. The philosophy is broken, the need for boys to compete is straggled, their need for exercise is unmet. I also think that boys should be segregated from girls in many classes, especially gym.
But all this is only my eccentricity and band aids on a festering wound. Your indictment of the public school system is right on. Of all places in hell where liberals will roast, there is a corner reserved, hotter than others, for opponents of school choice and vouchers.
"No... right to speak...", means there is no right.
"a right that is 'not unbounded, but can sometimes rightly be circumscribed'" , means there is a right.
They do not mean the same thing. They mean the opposite thing.
Words do have meaning and that's what they mean in this case. What is bizarre is your notion that kids in school have "no more right to speak." What is even more bizarre is your standing of language and logic on its head in reply after reply to confect the opposite meaning than the words define .
I don't see how adding the words "at will" to your formulation saves it. Presumably all speech is "at will" that is not coerced. The restriction on the speech in your formulation has not to do with whether or not the speech is coerced but whether it exists. The limitation on its existence you define as like that enjoyed-or not enjoyed-by a witness or a spectator in court: virtually nil.
It make no difference to the student or to the spectator in a courtroom whether he chooses to speak at will or not, what is at issue is his right to speak. If he chooses to speak he has, ipso facto, done so at will unless he is coerced. We are not talking about the right to refrain from speaking but the right to actively speak. There is simply no comparison between the right of a spectator or witness in a court room to speak and the right of the child in a school to speak. The latter enjoys a much broader spectrum of free speech. They should not be equated. The equation is fallacious.
I have distinguished the rights of the Child to speak in school as being much broader. The idea that a child can be restricted to the same degree as a spectator in a courtroom-is silly-or, to take us back to the beginning, bizarre.
As for the accusation that I have distorted your meeting by elipsis, please note that I quoted your paragraph in full on two occasions. The last time I again quoted your paragraph but with the omissions as you wrote it.
Where do I order one of those? :D
Fundamentally, government schools, the First Amendment, and freedom of conscience are utterly incompatible. Essentially judges are admitting this but say, since its just kids and ( indirectly their parents), its OK to trash the Constitution and the human rights this document is supposed to protect.
There is a solution: Complete privatization of K-12 education. Then these matters would be resolved privately in a private setting between the parents, teachers, and principals.
Of all places in hell where liberals will roast, there is a corner reserved, hotter than others, for opponents of school choice and vouchers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I couldn’t agree more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.