Posted on 04/16/2005 8:49:19 AM PDT by Snickersnee
Apparently they do not teach the students any recent history at this school! Or they would have learned about the 60's and about real Safe, Noncontroversial, Schools of Higher Learning there was then.
Another thing, I thought that schools today were suppose to teach the brats how to get involved in social issues? Which are "Controversial" in nature.
But when it comes to Lib's it's either their way or the highway.
ED
bump for later
Why did not the newspaper say CLEARLY this was a GLSEN function? Why did they not clearly say GSA or "gay" straight alliance club?
Could it be that the author is a homosexual who wrote this has been advised to write in this awkward way in order to avoid getting picked up by a news clipping service?
More accounts/info on this occurrence and National White Shirt Day on Monday. See MorallyStraightAlliance.org
I'm from South Windsor Highschool, so let me clue you in on something. On the back of the shirt it had a bible passage that said being gay was an abomination. Since when is it okay to bring religion into school? The Gay Straight Alliance wore shirts that didn't have any religious message. The Adam & Steve shirts also promoted intolerance to a group of people, while the Gay Straight Alliance protest promoted tolerance, they weren't saying that straight people were an abomination. That's the same thing as a KKK member wearing a white supremacy shirt to school, that promotes intolerance to a certain group of people and that is unacceptable. So instead of letting 'scumbag lawyers' sic their teeth into school, which to me sounds like people want the school sued for some morbid form of entertainment, we should concentrate on the true issue here. That people in the South Windsor High School, people in the world have a serious problem of tolerance or rather the lack of tolerance.
Just because you drape the argument in terms of "tolerance" doesn't make it right.
People have a fundamental RIGHT to believe what they want, practice whatever religion they want, and say what they want. This self-same RIGHT to do these things is what allows the GSA the freedom to express its opinions.
Moreover, people do not stop being religious when they enter the schoolhouse door. Their morality, derived from their religious beliefs, STAYS with them. Their sense of morality was offended by the open promotion of a lifestyle that their religious beliefs tell them is undesireable to God.
You don't have to like the message; you can hate the message, you don't have to accept or even listen to the message. But you should fight like all get out to protect the RIGHT of the messanger to say it. If you don't, then you are the worst of the bigots; you are denying your fellow citizens their fundamental, inalienable, inherent RIGHT to voice their opinion and FREELY EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION, but then insisting that they should remain silent when others do the same. So much for equality, huh?
And let us not use the lark of comparing sexuality with skin color. Whether hetero or homo, YOU control whether you engage in sexual activity or not. YOU control whether to express your sexuality or not. YOU control whether you will kiss, hug, or share affection with someone in public, private, or NOT. Skin color is with you 24/7 and there is no choice of action involved.
Funny you should mention the KKK. Did you know that the KKK killed Catholics, no matter their color? Probably not.
What amazes me about young people today is their complete lack of understanding of the foundation of this country. The primary underpinnings of this country, the philosophy upon which is was founded, the moral argument used to ignite the passions of people to desire freedom and self-determination was the belief that RIGHTS were granted by God, the Creator, and were an inherent part of every human being. They are not subject to the whims of the State, a King, or other worldly body; they are an intrinsict part of our HUMANITY, given to us BY GOD. If we continue taking God out of the equation, we eliminate the moral foundation upon which we can claim inalienable RIGHTS, and they can be destroyed, eliminated, or modified by any governing body as they see fit.
So ask yourself this, what is more important? Silencing dissenters of public opinion because you don't like what they have to say, or standing up for the principles that allow all voices to be heard, because guaranteeing the RIGHT of free speech allows it for ALL?
You leave me no choice.
I must therefore refuse to tolerate your lack of tolerance of a lack of tolerance.
We live in a wonderful country -- we can, and do, express our differences of thinking.
But, in turn, you have to accept that some other people won't agree with your mushy, relativistic principles -- and never will, especially if whining is your first response.
Also, here's some extra homework: read the First Amendment (especially the part about free exercise of religion). I don't see anything about exceptions for public schools, or any other organization, in there.
Were you one of the people shouting profanities? If not, did you try to stop the people shouting profanities at the "intolerant" people?
Can I push up your stool.
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.