Gotta love religious tolerance in schools!
1 posted on
04/02/2008 5:39:37 AM PDT by
NRA1995
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: NRA1995
Millin showed the student a policy for the class that prohibited any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs in artwork What's left to draw? A bowl of fruit?
2 posted on
04/02/2008 5:41:39 AM PDT by
neodad
(USS Vincennes (CG 49) "Checkmate Cruiser")
To: NRA1995
In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are "persons" under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. Tinker V. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503.
3 posted on
04/02/2008 5:43:21 AM PDT by
fzx12345
(ACLU DELENDA EST)
To: NRA1995
religious beliefs in artworkMichaelangelo would be kicked out of class as would many other great artists.
7 posted on
04/02/2008 5:48:38 AM PDT by
normy
(Don't take it personally, just take it seriously.)
To: NRA1995
So, let's see here, demonic heads-check, Grim Reaper with a scythe-check, a being with a horned head and protruding tongue-check, Medusa-check, but nooooooo, not a cross with scripture. The schools are showing their hand and it's definitely not good for our culture.
To: NRA1995
“The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy ...”
If this boy was a minor when he signed, wouldn't that make his signature illegal or irrelevant?
9 posted on
04/02/2008 5:53:15 AM PDT by
Mister Da
(The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
To: NRA1995
This tough-guy art teacher is all balls when dealing with a Christian student.
If Mohammed in the back of the class drew ritually beheaded Jews burning in hell, Mr. Fembo would have given him an "A" and begged not to be killed.
10 posted on
04/02/2008 5:53:40 AM PDT by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: NRA1995
So a Wisconsin student with the talent to produce this, wouldn't be allowed to display it in school.
To: NRA1995
Copy of the drawing in question.
To: NRA1995
Here is the school website. Has emails and phone numbers. This really disgusts me.
http://www.tomah.k12.wi.us/schools/ths/default.htm
Tomah High School
901 Lincoln Avenue
Tomah, Wisconsin 54660
Phone: 608-374-7358
Fax: 608-374-7290
Principal- Marlon Mee 374-7351
Asst. Prin.- Cale Jackson 374-7352
Asst. Prin.- Dan Reinert 374-7353
18 posted on
04/02/2008 6:10:01 AM PDT by
Tigercap
(McCain. For Supreme Court judge nominations and WOT progress if nothing else.)
To: NRA1995
The lawsuit claims Millin told the boy he had signed away his constitutional rights when he signed the policy at the beginning of the semester.The story does not give the students age, but if he is under 18, I do not think that what he signed would be considered legally binding.
To: NRA1995
**ALL** government schools are utterly incompatible with freedom of conscience and the First Amendment. This is the **fundamental** conflict here.
For this reason government schools should be privatized, and there should be complete separation between school and state.
Will Christian parents be gracious when their children are forced into viewing and discussing images of the Angel Moroni or Joseph Smith? Will they welcome Wiccan images? Will Jewish parents be thrilled when Muslim students draw pictures of a nuclear bomb destroying Israel.? When these images are posted on bulletin boards and discussed in class, their spiritually and emotionally immature children will be exposed to and indoctrinated into ideas that are in conflict with family tradition.
Please remember that any government powerful enough to force Christian art on non-Christian children is powerful enough to force anti-Christian art on Christian children.
The education of children is **never** religiously neutral. Government schools are NOT religiously neutral and never have been. They will always trample religious freedom of conscience.
As for this specific case:
Yes, the attorneys should pursue this. Why?
Answer: Because if Christian speech is suppressed in government schools it will be suppressed elsewhere in government and public environments. As long as we have government schools the rights for Christians to speak in them must be defended.
Unfortunately, the courts will rule narrowly on the issue before it. ( The student will likely win.) The courts will ignore the fundamental problem of government schools being in complete conflict with freedom of conscience and the First Amendment.
23 posted on
04/02/2008 6:18:23 AM PDT by
wintertime
(Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
To: NRA1995
Whatever they said he signed is null and void because minors can’t enter into any contracts...or so I thought.
To: NRA1995
So much for art being an avenue to express ones self. Whats this “teachers” name? Ms. Marxistbot?
27 posted on
04/02/2008 6:36:25 AM PDT by
4yearlurker
(So long Myron. Call the Steelers games from heaven.)
To: NRA1995
The flakey, irrational, inconsistent, stupid prejudices of the Left might have been amusing when they were passing out flowers and singing about the zodiac, but when they hold power over others they become nothing more than the caprices of tyrants.
The new age of the Left is nothing more than tyrrany, an evil older than history itself, just as the new morality is nothing more than the age old immorality and the new justice is nothing more than the age old injustice.
The Left was designed and is populated by minds that are mediocre at best.
31 posted on
04/02/2008 6:44:03 AM PDT by
Savage Beast
("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
To: NRA1995
What it should come down to - did he fulfill the assignment with his work. If he did, then there is no way a zero is justified because the teacher didn’t agree with his expression.
33 posted on
04/02/2008 6:50:08 AM PDT by
TheBattman
(LORD God, please give us a Christian Patriot with a backbone for President in 08, Amen.)
To: NRA1995
How does Julie Millin teach art history without utilitzing artwork that expresses religious beliefs?
36 posted on
04/02/2008 6:52:47 AM PDT by
Burkean
To: NRA1995
I’m certain if the kid had drawn planes flying into buildings with an Allah Akbar title, nothing would have been said.
37 posted on
04/02/2008 6:53:01 AM PDT by
The Great RJ
("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
To: NRA1995
I just wish I had a CD of Material ready to put out
I'd use that as CD cover art in a heartbeat!
38 posted on
04/02/2008 7:03:20 AM PDT by
Cheapskate
(Still backing Hunter"I refuse to be fitted with collar and chain, and given a pat on the back")
To: NRA1995
Suing? There’s got to be a better way.
46 posted on
04/02/2008 7:19:46 AM PDT by
sam_paine
(X .................................)
To: NRA1995
The kid should have asked the teacher to suggest installing foot baths in the bathrooms instead. The school administration would have been fine with that.
47 posted on
04/02/2008 7:19:54 AM PDT by
headstamp 2
(Been here before)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson