Student Was So Offended by How Her School Pushed ‘Christian Beliefs’ That She’s Suing Them

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,767.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Except in the case of Cecil the dentist was guilty of poaching the lion.

...After being advised by his native guides. It was up to the guides to make sure it was a legal hunt. But the offense people are experiencing around the world doesn't seem to have anything to do with poaching laws. There has always been a strong anti-hunting campaign. The hatred shown towards the dentist http://news.sky.com/story/1527470/lion-killing-dentist-faces-terroristic-threats have nothing to do with whether the hunt was legal or not. It's been about emotional reactions from people who love animals more than people.
 
Upvote 0

Sammy-San

Newbie
May 23, 2013
9,020
848
✟104,579.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Maybe you should've read the constitution a little more closely before you swore to uphold and defend it.

That doesn't justify her suing them thousands of dollars. She probably is just using this situation as an excuse to make money-Americans are sue-crazy.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That doesn't justify her suing them thousands of dollars. She probably is just using this situation as an excuse to make money-Americans are sue-crazy.
Always a good fall back. When you find your "side" losing, claim the other guy is only doing it for the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Fox
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,162
7,519
✟347,296.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
That doesn't justify her suing them thousands of dollars. She probably is just using this situation as an excuse to make money-Americans are sue-crazy.
Except she had entered into a settlement with them just for attorney fees if they followed the terms of a new policy on religion that they implemented. It was only after they breached this agreement that she brought this law suit upon them. Yes she did get money out of it, but only because the school ignored the previous decision that they had agreed to.
 
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
grandvizier1006, (after I posted I saw your many edits. Why is that?)

It's been pretty clear in America and for a number of years, and most concertedly beyond anything American Atheists group imagined when they pursued repeal of religious freedom in America long years ago.

Now we have the outright preamble in an activist groups chosen moniker so as to forewarn the religious of their agenda: Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I've monitored this group for a little while now. One obvious flaw in their statement of purpose is in being forthright with the truth. They're not dedicated to repeal of all religious freedom. Rather, they're dedicated to repeal and-or oppression of Christians religious freedoms.
Their tentacles are in our schools, in business, even on the net in communities.
Their agenda is repeal of the first amendment. While their smoke screen is invocation of the language in the 1st and 14th amendments.
There's only one problem with that. Separation of church and state is not in the language of the U.S Constitution.

That so called, wall of separation, was described after the SCOTUS case, Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. And this based on the errant reading of the text of a Thomas Jefferson letter that has no merit in deciding a Constitutional protection.

Whereas the organic laws (The source of law and government, that which exercises regulation and control of government not citizens ) of the United States. Those organics are comprised of the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and the 1787 Northwest Ordinance. These make clear that God, Creator, was interwoven into the textual language of those organics. (The Declaration of Independence for instance; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. However Declarationism, as it's known, is language that is incorporated into the body of American case law. Everything we are as a nation began in part with the drafting of the DoI.

So for the anti-religious groups and their committed activists to pursue revocation of religious freedom, their intention is to actually overthrow the organic law of America. And all of American law that insures freedom of religion. Because being we are not a Theocracy people are already free to not be religious. But they are not free to use their lack of religious conviction as a launching point to reform the American landscape of rights so as to rescind religious liberty in America.
The government cannot become a Theocracy. However, the government, local and federal, is also precluded from repealing religious freedom locally and nationally. They're also precluded from suppressing religious expression.

While we could argue about much of this, it is probably easier to say that there are some Christian groups I've seen whose unstated purpose is to turn the US into a Christian theocracy. While you might disagree with me, the fact is, neither the views of those rather radical Christian groups or the FFRF are representative of any type of majority in this country. There will always be radical groups but, hopefully, the majority will see that they don't have the right answers.

When a public school announces it is going to become a Christian church there's an issue. When a public school invokes the religious rights and freedoms assured all tax payers that support that government funded public school are able to express their religion freely, we do not.

That is what anti-religious groups and their dedicated activists intend to overcome. The smokescreen if inroads to accomplish that mission is therefore transparent. And that is why the committed Christian tax payers should counter sue when they meet any one member or many of that agenda targeting their property. I.E. Their tax supported public education facility.

Just as we read that businesses open to the public cannot discriminate for certain reasons that I'm not able to go into here. That applies when it is an education facility that is not only open to the public but is funded locally by the taxes of the citizen public.

I think you and I have vastly different ideas about "religious rights and freedoms" when it comes to a school. Since, as you admit, a school should not be a church, they should not have assemblies or prayers that are religious in nature (regardless of the religion) -- those types of things do not match the purpose of the school. While it may be appropriate to teach about religions in a history or even comparative religion course, those lessons are best taught in a classroom -- there is no reason to have school wide assemblies.

The fact is, Christians (and hopefully every other religious belief a student may have) "religious rights and freedoms" are protected. A student may pray and, if done in a way that is not disruptive, may pray with others in a group. Students can read and study their Bible in the school, though it will likely be restricted during class time. If the school allows non-academic clubs, then students are free to start a Christianity club that includes prayer and Bible study. The point here is that individuals have religious rights but there is no "right" for a group of Christians, no matter if they are the majority or not, to force the school to act as a Christian ministry -- even if they give other students the right to "opt out".
 
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
And yet, her complaint was that she was personally offended.



First of all, I can't imagine why my children would be in a government school.

Second, we would just say "No, thank you."



No, I don't find it praiseworthy at all. I find her to be a spoiled, snot nosed, little brat who won't last five minutes out in the real world where she won't be able to bully anybody who doesn't agree with her.

Nothing like trying to claim the victim of bullying (per the OP) is actually the bully.
 
Upvote 0

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
That doesn't justify her suing them thousands of dollars. She probably is just using this situation as an excuse to make money-Americans are sue-crazy.

So I'm guessing you'd be just as outraged by a student suing because they were not allowed to read their Bible in school? You would also claim they were just using the situation "to make money?"

Personally, I think in both cases that the students did the correct things to stand up for their rights.
 
Upvote 0

Lazy_Proverb

"You did not choose me but I chose you"Jn.15:16
Aug 1, 2015
465
137
Visit site
✟16,321.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So I'm guessing you'd be just as outraged by a student suing because they were not allowed to read their Bible in school? You would also claim they were just using the situation "to make money?"

Personally, I think in both cases that the students did the correct things to stand up for their rights.
Too bad she didn't think to stand up for her right to refuse to attend the assembly.
Instead, she decided she'd seek legal recourse that quashed the rights of others so that she'd not stand to be offended by Christians in future. And make her school safe from them in the process.

Contrary to what many atheists today believe, neither Christians or any other religious person are not required by law to leave their religious convictions at the door of their parents tax funded public schools.
Nor are those schools by law to be atheist institutions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
This young woman was not a victim of bullying.

I seem to recall reading that the student, on whose behalf the complaint was made, was bullied. If I'm wrong, fine, because it shouldn't really matter. As I stated in another post, should children who are told they can't bring their Bible to school sue?

Too bad she didn't think to stand up for her right to refuse to attend the assembly.
Instead, she decided she'd seek legal recourse that quashed the rights of others so that she'd not stand to be offended by Christians in future. And make her school safe from them in the process.

As others have stated, this was a violation by the school of a previous agreement -- it wasn't the first time the school had done this. Further, she did not "quash the rights of others." There is no right, even for a majority, to require a prayer or other religious activity. As a non-governmental example, try getting a group of your fellow Christians together to force your employer to have prayers at the start of meetings -- it sounds rather ridiculous to claim that as a "right", doesn't it? So why should a school be any different -- particularly when the government (and government "entities) are not to give preference to any religion.

She actually strengthened the religious rights of all students, by ensure the school does not violate the religious rights of students that aren't part of the majority religion.

Contrary to what many atheists today believe, neither Christians or any other religious person are not required by law to leave their religious convictions at the door of their parents tax funded public schools.
Nor are those schools by law to be atheist institutions.

And contrary to what you keep trying to claim, no Christians in this example are "required by law to leave their religious convictions at the door." Instead, they simply cannot use their majority status to infringe on the religious beliefs of other students that do not share their beliefs. These students are still free to pray, free to read their Bible, etc. -- they just cannot require other students (or all students) to do it with them.
 
Upvote 0

South Bound

I stand with Israel.
Jan 3, 2014
4,443
1,034
✟31,159.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nothing like trying to claim the victim of bullying (per the OP) is actually the bully.

She wasn't being bullied. She was being asked to listen to something she disagreed with.

When she didn't get her way, she sued them.

What you guys on the Left don't realize is that our liberties are based on the premise that God has endowed all men with certain unalienable rights. Remove God from the equation and those rights are no longer unalienable, but then come from the government and can be taken away at any time and for any reason.

So while you applaud this, the long term effect is that it's going to hurt you just as much as it hurts the rest of us. You're like a person standing in a burning house and cheering on the guy with the gas can.

If you support this and you continue to support treasonous politicians who support this, then you will get the tyranny you deserve.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,579
11,397
✟437,412.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is your opinion there are others who do not agree with you. So you say, I should believe you, an atheist compared to scientists who do believe in God.

I don't know. Sharing coding sequences in genes really doesn't mean that much. As an human my grandson could design several different objects from legos and by changing one lego in each design they would all be different and unrelated. If he can do that then certainly an Intelligent Creator could.

Am I misunderstanding something or are you kidding? It is scientifically proven that some viruses mutilate, that H2O is H2O whether it is in the form of a gas, liquid, or solid. ???

I'm aware there are those who think ID is scientific...and again, I'd ask them why. Just thinking that something is scientific doesn't make it so. So what if a scientist believes in god? Does that mean his reasons for believing in god are scientific? Nope. If someone claims that science supports a position, they have to show it does. Simply claiming so means nothing.

You don't know? Why not just say, "I won't accept any evidence since it contradicts my beliefs."? It certainly looks like that's what you mean. What do you suppose the reason is that humans share so much DNA with some species and not others?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,579
11,397
✟437,412.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Like, say, John Polkinghorne?

I would tend to think that his position as a priest might color his knowledge of physics with just a teeny tiny bit of bias.

Seriously, can't we just find a physicist who isn't an authority figure of some christian religious institution who thinks that physics points to the existence of god? I certainly don't mind if the physicist is christian...but when he's a reverend, father, priest, etc...he's clearly got a vested interest in supporting his religion with his science.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,579
11,397
✟437,412.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'd think someone determined to pursue freedom would first demonstrate freedom of free thought and exercise. By refusing to attend a compulsory event, which is a violation of the rules.
Not, rather than concede rather than resist, later pursue an avenue of prosecution that insures no one may attend a religious event whatever.

Which is not only a violation of the Constitution but patently illegal.

And as such, those who are religiously inclined should send the message by filing a lawsuit against this young woman personally for her violation of their religious civil rights.
As well as any supporting organization that were complicit.

This then sends its own message that the first amendment is not to be rescinded by those in opposition.


Liberty Counsel PDF=STUDENTS’ RIGHTS ON PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUSES


She hasn't stopped anyone from attending any christian events, nor has she violated anyone's rights. They're all free to attend whatever religious event they want...they just can't do it on the taxpayer's dime...nor should they.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red Fox
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,579
11,397
✟437,412.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,579
11,397
✟437,412.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
grandvizier1006, (after I posted I saw your many edits. Why is that?)

It's been pretty clear in America and for a number of years, and most concertedly beyond anything American Atheists group imagined when they pursued repeal of religious freedom in America long years ago.

Now we have the outright preamble in an activist groups chosen moniker so as to forewarn the religious of their agenda: Freedom From Religion Foundation.

I've monitored this group for a little while now. One obvious flaw in their statement of purpose is in being forthright with the truth. They're not dedicated to repeal of all religious freedom. Rather, they're dedicated to repeal and-or oppression of Christians religious freedoms.
Their tentacles are in our schools, in business, even on the net in communities.
Their agenda is repeal of the first amendment. While their smoke screen is invocation of the language in the 1st and 14th amendments.
There's only one problem with that. Separation of church and state is not in the language of the U.S Constitution.

That so called, wall of separation, was described after the SCOTUS case, Everson v. Board of Educ. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. And this based on the errant reading of the text of a Thomas Jefferson letter that has no merit in deciding a Constitutional protection.

Whereas the organic laws (The source of law and government, that which exercises regulation and control of government not citizens ) of the United States. Those organics are comprised of the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and the 1787 Northwest Ordinance. These make clear that God, Creator, was interwoven into the textual language of those organics. (The Declaration of Independence for instance; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. However Declarationism, as it's known, is language that is incorporated into the body of American case law. Everything we are as a nation began in part with the drafting of the DoI.

So where's the mention of god in the Constitution?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,579
11,397
✟437,412.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And yet, her complaint was that she was personally offended.



First of all, I can't imagine why my children would be in a government school.

Second, we would just say "No, thank you."



No, I don't find it praiseworthy at all. I find her to be a spoiled, snot nosed, little brat who won't last five minutes out in the real world where she won't be able to bully anybody who doesn't agree with her.

Lol "bully"...

She bullied the entire school...the school that forced her to attend a religious event? What exactly did she bully them with? A better understanding of the laws they're supposed to follow and her sidekick the U.S. Constitution?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,579
11,397
✟437,412.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Too bad she didn't think to stand up for her right to refuse to attend the assembly.
Instead, she decided she'd seek legal recourse that quashed the rights of others so that she'd not stand to be offended by Christians in future. And make her school safe from them in the process.

Contrary to what many atheists today believe, neither Christians or any other religious person are not required by law to leave their religious convictions at the door of their parents tax funded public schools.
Nor are those schools by law to be atheist institutions.

Who's being asked to leave their religious convictions "at the door"?

Unless there's a class, or mandatory student assembly, that instructs students that god doesn't exist...no public schools in the U.S. are in any danger of becoming atheist institutions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
I would tend to think that his position as a priest might color his knowledge of physics with just a teeny tiny bit of bias.
He was a physicist first, and a priest second

Methinks you're moving the goalposts

People in the public domain, well known, and speaking with clarity from an informed basis in both the science and the theology are almost certainly going to be leaders in some sense, whether formally or not.

A physicist who became a priest would seem to be exactly who one should be looking for
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.