Skip to comments.New York Student Sues High School for Prohibiting Pro-Life Shirt
Posted on 05/11/2005 2:11:51 PM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly
click here to read article
But then you always were more optimistic than me ...
Ant Z: "...sometimes here in the Colony I feel so...insignificant."
Therapist Ant: "EXCELLENT, Z! That's a real breakthrough.
Ant Z: "It is? How's that?"
Therapist Ant: Well, Z. You ARE insignificant."
Ant Z: "I am?"
-from the motion picture "ANTZ"; Dreamworks Productions, 2003
There is also the view that those who wanted Terri to remain in her tormented state were "pro torture". How would you like to be trapped in a non functioning body for several years, dependent on others for your most intimate functioning and unable to communicate or interact in a manner anywhere close to normal? To most people that would be torture in the most sever degree. Does it raise our standing to force someone to endure this most inhumane of conditions just so we can maintain some superstitious belief about our human condition? If so, that is too bad.
Until they mention the word Jesus.
How do you know Terri's brain wasn't self aware? Are you her "self"?
I think your existence must be pure torture. Your testimony otherwise is just proof that your "self" is utterly deluded and can no longer be trusted to provide credible testimony about your true state.
Got a better standard for defining human life? Maybe "independence" or the ability to preserve the self? Any others?
You can prove that for yourself. Have you communicated with a tree or a rock? Be that as it may, you and I have communicated, therefore we are self-aware by your definition.
Have you read all of my posts on this thread? That would be a good idea if you actually want to understand what I am saying.
I don't think public schools should be in the business of regulating freedom of expression, unless we're going to do away with the First Amendment. I wonder where the ACLU is on this one.
So all of a sudden "communication" is your standard? I just want to be clear. A second ago it was self-awareness. It IS communication now, right?
Not quite sure why this student should be required to "hold his tongue" about his political beliefs on public property. Protecting controversial speech is what the 1st Amendment is all about.
In this age of school shootings, it seems the schools have bigger problems on their hands than a student choosing to express his views.
I don't know that for sure - even though Doctors testified under oath that she was not self aware. But, I hope she was not self aware - how would you like to be trapped in a mostly non functioning body for years on end? Imagine being stuck in a (body) coffin, unable to move, unable to read, unable to communicate, etc. - would that not drive almost anyone insane? We would not allow a convicted murder to endure those conditions.
Well, that was my point. How did humanity multiply from Adam and Eve without massive incest? And since incest was inevitable and required for the expansion of mankind, what is wrong with it now?
No, communication is just evidence of self-awareness. Not a very difficult concept ... Please try to think a little longer before replying.
And spiritually, there had to be a first human. The animals don't understand that there is a God. There had to be a first creature who could see that there was a God. And that was Adam. To worry about incest when a truth like that is being given to us is looking for flyshit in the pepper.
LOL, good one.
This school district as a legal target is so juicy that I am salivating.
I don't agree. Spiritually, there is no beginning and no ending - spirit is eternal. I do not believe that my life began at human birth. If we are children of an infinite God, we are also infinite. This human experience is just a segment of our real existence. Human thought once perceived the world as flat because that was how it appeared. Human thought perceives life to exist between human birth and death because that is how it appears. Using our intellect we can imagine that life is far more than it appears to our human consciousness. Most of humanity is locked into the superstition that life is only what we can perceive and that misunderstanding is keeping humanity from making the progress that Jesus sacrificed for. Spirituality is not connected to the human condition. You do not become more spiritual by believing that Adam and Eva were the source of life. Adam and Eve were the source of the human illusion that we are separate from our spiritual Source which is God.
Please try to think before making self-awareness your standard, when what you really mean is YOU believing something is self aware, which is completely different.
Your Scoratic performance on this thread leaves something to be desired. If man emerged from some sucessful mutuation, along with other species, that means the original gene pool was very small, in fact just one pair. Subsequent incest is just playing Russian roulette again and again, and soon one loses, and the lucky breakthrough is terminated in that incestuous line.
This is your second reference on this thread to religious zealot/fanatics in reference to an anti-abortion position and as a pro-life agnostic I must take issue with your assumption.
There are many stances from which many people take a pro-life position: feminist, agnostic, atheist, libertarian, even vegetarian. I won't get into the abortion/life debate with you...it's too late at night you're simply too cookie-cutter tedious on the matter but please refrain from lumping into the reliable "religious-zealot-and-therefore-may-be-dismissed-trashcan" all those who find abortion barbaric and unacceptable in a humane society.
It is rather insulting isn't it? Debating the merits of an issue, rather than just flaming one group or another, and name calling in a effort to give position a noisome air, is a more worthy and productive exercise.
I do not lump all anti-abortion people into that category. In most cases abortion is barbaric - in some cases it is the best but difficult choice. The key here is how and who decides the exception. Do we want the government or any particular religious group to do that or do we want the woman and her family to do that? Easy answer for me. This country was founded upon the principle of individual freedom and restrained government with a separation of religion from that restrained government. If you don't approve of abortion, don't get one even if it means your wife dies as a result.
even if it means your wife dies as a result. >>
dies? most women do not die from being pregnant, it they do die, it's "during" childbirth way too late for an abortion. A woman may face a greater risk having an abortion than by carrying the baby to term.
But you have. Twice, on this thread alone.
In the future I hope you'll refer to those opposing a woman's "right" to lay down her body and sacrifice her child for the convenience of society as "disgusting, arrogant religious zealots (your words) AND agnostic, vegetarian feminists."
As I said in my earlier message I don't wish to get into a debate on the matter, just ask that you stop using the tiresome and false stereotype. However I might suggest that you revisit the topic with an open mind -- give it some original thought.
Here's where the ACLU went to court to defend a Christian Church facing eviction:
Here's where they defended a Catholic who faced discrimination (in court):
Here's where they threatened to sue when a water park in Virginia tried to stop baptisms (they got the park to back down:
Here's where they joined a lawsuit on the same side as Jerry Falwell (!): http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=10147&c=142
Here's where they stood up for a Christian missionary having the right to be in a jury:
Here's where they fought for a religious fairness bill, alongside the Family Research Council, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Christian Legal Society, etc.
It goes on and on. Just because they don't want the 10 commandments posted on the courtroom walls doesn't mean that they won't stick up for your right to have your beliefs.
Looks like he trolled one to many threads (and he was ALL OVER the place with sarcasm and criticism today):
"This account has been banned or suspended."
You do REALIZE that the left was actually selling "I had an abortion" shirts to boast of their deed.
There is also the book titled something like, "The Sacrament of Abortion" calling it a valid rite of passage for women to experience and enjoy. It is them controlling their bodies ("Ha, mother nature, abortion means never having to say 'I do'").
If Terri was in a "tormented state" then she had feeling. Being starved to death for two weeks is a HORRIBLE way to die.
"Do we want the government or any particular religious group to do that or do we want the woman and her family to do that?"
The government has already ruled in and said that the family has no say in this matter. Unlike ANY other medical procedure, youths (who are BELOW the age of consent, and often experiencing a pregnancy by an adult statutory rapist/molestor) are free to decide to commit the act of infanticide without notifying anyone.
Certainly the increased risk of breast cancer (after abortion) can be life threatening.
Dueling and slavery were legal at the founding of this country. Abortion was not.
I wouldn't say that there is justification for any of them.
As "bad" as it is for a rape victim to be "forced" to bear a child she did not consent to, why should the child suffer the greatest tragedy as a result? Should that same "tragedy" be expanded to include cases where the child happens to have a birth defect or simply be of the "wrong sex" or the sire of an ex-lover (fell out of fashion)?
Acts have consequences.
Abortion and suicide are permanent solutions to temporary problems. Where is the shame in bringing the child of a rapist to full term? Not asking the victim to raise this bastard child, there are plenty who will take over. Or is rape a hereditary condition? If it is, then rape should be as legal a sex act a homosexuality (it's nature!).
Not from me. I grew up with "Question Authority" as the moto. It is refreshing to see a kid standing up to it these days. I've often wondered why kids being told they could not pray in school simply did not do it anyhow. What are they going to do, suspend them for praying.
We used to laugh at their threats to suspend us. "You mean we don't have to come to school for 10 days! Surfs Up!"
They would give us some malarky about it going on our record. Yea, like we cared about that. Guess we saw then that the school record they tried to hold over our heads really meant nothing.
The kid in this story is to be commended.
Come on. It is not a distraction. And if it is, it is only because everyone in this country seems to have gone off the "it offends me" deep end.
I don't remember the t-shirts everyone wore in school being a distraction. What a lot of nonsense.
Again the free speech issue comes up vs. 'distraction.'
Two girls were going to be suspended from high school for wearing t-shirts that said, "I (heart=Love) My Vagina." There idea apparently came from the Vagina Monologues presented on campuses in the past.
They proclamed their right to free speech.
Makes me wonder if two guys wore "I Love Your Vagina" t-shirts. Then along comes a female offended by it. How far do you think the free speech argument would be tolerated by the PC clowns?.
Not quite the same thing here. I'm not aware of anyone who died because of a student expressing his views in school.
Everything can potentially be a distraction to those who choose to be distracted, including blonde hair. Are we going to ban that? Seriously, how far are we going to go in regulating someone's behavior?
Oh, I'm sorry. Did that shirt have words on it? Must have been looking at something else.
Oh puh_leeeez, you buy into their propaganda. What about these cases:
- In Virginia, the ACLU has protested the issuing of Choose Life license plates and a moment of silence for school children at the beginning of each day.
-ACLU is defended the North American Man- Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) for this pedophile groups role in the brutal murder of 10-yearold Jeffrey Curley in 1997, but the ACLU opposes abortion groups rights and supported a law that prohibits them from protesting outside of abortion clinics.
-The ACLU has filed lawsuits throughout the United States to remove Christian crosses and the 10 Commandments from public buildings.
-In California, the ACLU threatened to sue the County of Los Angeles if it didnt remove a small cross from the county seal. The cross is one of the smallest images on the seal. The pagan Greek goddess Pomona is the largest image, but the ACLU only targeted the removal of the crossnot the pagan goddess.
-The ACLU sued Virginia Beach for a cross on its city seal. The ACLU specifically targets Christian symbols. He notes that in California, students are required to read the Koran in school and the ACLU has no problem with this. - In New York City, public schools were forced to remove all Christian symbols of Christmas but not Jewish Menorahs or the Islamic Star and Crescent for Ramadanand the ACLU didnt object.
-In a court filing the ACLU said, "The actors in this matter deserve jail and/or fines for their calculated un-American and immoral conduct." What did these actors do? They were students who said a prayer over the PA at a high school baseball game in Louisiana. Jail time for a prayer?
-This ACLU has yet to challenge any Muslim prayers that have now been mandated by many California public schools. For the ACLU, Islam is allowed but, Christianity is forbidden.
Of course, this list goes on and on too. The ACLU consistantly supports different rules for Christians as it does for others. The ACLU has a long history of fighting against any display of Christianity in public despite some token cases that have no effect on their cause,
I'm not sure what you mean by "lay down her body" but I do not believe that women have abortions "for the convenience of society"; they have abortions for various reasons but mainly because they believe that it is the best of difficult options for themselves and their family. That may or may not be an erroneous belief but they should be the one to make the decision.
Regarding those who want to make abortion/health/moral/family decisions for others, they are overwhelmingly coming from a religious basis. The vast majority of those who redefine and use overly emotional terms such as murder, killing babies, etc. eventually reveal their extreme religious bias. It is fine with me if a religious group wants to dictate abortion policy to its members; it is when they want to dictate that policy to everyone that there is a problem. It is fine with me if you oppose abortion for whatever reason and confine that opposition to your own family; the problem is when you try to dictate to me and my family what we should do regarding abortion. Are you coming from a philosophy based upon religion or from your own personal wisdom?
How do you know for sure that terminating that particular pregnancy was "the greatest tragedy"? Do you know for sure that the undeveloped fetus of that pregnancy will still not be conceived and born under much better conditions for everyone? How do we know for sure that there is only one chance to come into this human world? What is the source of our lives, human parents or God? Can a human act overcome the will of God? If God wills that someone come into this world, I believe it will happen - sooner or later.
Here's another point to contemplate. If you believe in the concept of eternal life (which I do), you should realize that eternal means without limit, no beginning and no ending. That means we are really alive before coming into this world and we will be alive after we leave. Abortion is a (usually flawed) human attempt to make the stay here a little better for the people directly involved. To say that an abortion deprives the potential baby of life is just not something we can know for sure. It APPEARS that way but then the earth appeared flat to those who had limited perspective.
In our society, the right to offend outweighs the right not to be offended. To limit or regulate speech in public venues, the government has the overwhelming burden of showing that great harm would be done in the absence of such regulation, e.g. the "Fire!" in the movie house example. However, I don't believe wearing controversial messages in school meets that criterion. As for dead fetuses, dead soldiers, or the coathanger horsesh*t propagated by the pro-aborts, they're all examples of political speech protected by the First Amendment. Personal attacks on other students are not, and could indeed cause serious damage both psychologically and physically.
While a school building is publically owned, I don't believe allowing those sorts of non-education related activities helps the school serve the purpose for which it was founded -- namely, educating the kids therein. That's why I support the idea of uniforms at school. It takes the focus off the social (and caste) aspect of clothing, it nips in the bud many controversies which could be avoided and which ultimately serve only to distract from the education rather than enhnce it, and apparently, it saves money on lawsuits as well.
The "I'm offended" aspect of this is not at all my reasoning for my stance, other than the slippery slope argument of saying if we allow one, we have to allow them all, and soon we'll have "dueling shirts", a huge distraction which does nothing to promote the education of the students.
Now, having said all that, it appears this student does have a decent suit on his hands, sinnce he was apparently singled out for discipline on a shirt which wasn't shown to be causing a distraction in and of itself, and with no other extenuationg circumstances which the article lets us in on. We'll see.
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.